HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09a - Amending the Development Code to implement a Historic Preservation Ordinance
DATE: February 19, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2359 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE
IX, CHAPTER 1 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE (THE
“DEVELOPMENT CODE”), WITH AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”), TO
IMPLEMENT A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Recommendation: Introduce
SUMMARY
Text Amendment No. TA 18-02 has been prepared to amend various sections of the
Arcadia Development Code to adopt a Citywide Historic Preservation Ordinance. In
addition to providing processes for designating historic properties, forming historic
districts, and participating in the Mills Act Program, the Ordinance originally proposed a
list of 176 resources that were identified as being individually eligible for listing as a
historic resource at the federal, state, and/or local level.
At their January 8, 2019, meeting, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the
draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Following public testimony and discussion, the
Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance, but
as a voluntary or “consensual” Ordinance. The Planning Commission also recommended
that the list of eligible resources not be adopted, and that their individual comments be
forwarded to the City Council.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s
recommendation and approve a Historic Preservation Ordinance, along with an
exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15308, Class 8, and as
a project subject to CEQA’s “general rule” of no impact.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 2 of 12
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the City Council voted to conduct a Historic Resources Survey to find out what
historic resources exist in the City, both in residential and in commercial areas. Without
going through an official survey, buildings can be demolished and removed without a real
understanding of the historic context and potential historic value of these buildings. The
City retained Architectural Resource Group, Inc. (“ARG”) to prepare the City's first
comprehensive Citywide Historic Context Statement (refer to Attachment No. 6) and
conduct an intensive-level survey of all the properties within the city limits. Approximately
16,800 parcels were surveyed from the public right-of-way, with the exception of those
properties that were built after 1970. The time threshold of 50 years of age (or at least 45
years of age at the time of Survey) was used because it is a benchmark set by the National
Park Service for properties under consideration for the Nationa l Register of Historic
Places.
Based on the evaluation, a total of 189 potential historic resources , including 165 potential
individual buildings, 11 potential historic districts (which included 1,957 buildings), and 12
non-building resources (structures, objects, and sites) were documented through the
survey. After the survey was completed, the City Council voted to draft a Historic
Preservation Ordinance that established a method of protecting the resources and
potential historic districts identified in the Survey.
Following the completion of the Historic Resources Survey in July 2016, the survey resu lts
were shared with the community during several community meetings. The following
timeline depicts the various milestones within the project over the course of the last
several years:
October 13 and December 1, 2016 – Two Community Meetings were held to inform
the community about the Citywide Historic Preservation Survey, the process, the
resources that were identified, and the effects of owning a surveyed property.
February 1, 2017 – City Council Study Session to consider the comments to date
and the Survey results, and to determine the next step in the process. At that time,
City staff and ARG were directed to prepare a draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance in order to establish criteria and procedures for designation,
preservation, and maintenance of the City’s historic resources.
September 5, 2017 – City Council Study Session to discuss various levels of
criteria (including local) and issues related to the draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
October 6, 2017 – City released the first draft of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 3 of 12
November 2 and November 13, 2017 – Community Meetings held to present the
draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and to focus on the regulations and process
for properties that are located within a potential historic district and the process for
individually eligible resources.
March 2018 – An informational Fact Sheet was developed to respond to the many
questions that were raised after the Draft Ordinance was released (refer to
Attachment No. 6). A postcard was sent to every property owner in the City
informing them of the Fact Sheet.
October 3, 2018 – City Council Study Session to discuss proposed changes to the
draft Ordinance.
October 10, 2018 – The draft Ordinance was revised to reflect those changes
agreed to by the City Council and re-posted on the City’s Historic Preservation
webpage. The major changes to the draft Ordinance were:
- To not include the pre-designated potential historic districts in the draft
Ordinance. A neighborhood could still form a District, but the original 11 eligible
Districts have been removed (and all the associated properties).
- The Ordinance would only protect resources that have been identified as
individually eligible at the federal, state, and/or local level (176 resources
TOTAL).
- The City Council would now need a Supermajority (4-1) vote to overturn an
owner’s lack of consent to nominate an individual property.
November 19, 2018 – A letter was sent to all 176 owners informing them that their
property is on the survey list as a “potential” historic resource, which means it was
found to be either “potentially eligible” for listing on the National Register, California
Register, and/or at the local level. The owners were also informed that although
the list provides recommendations regarding eligibility of a property, no actual
designation would result directly from this process; and a full historical evaluation
would still be required to confirm its significance.
November 26, 2018 – A notice (on a postcard) was sent to every property owner
in the City informing them of the upcoming public hearing dates.
The Arcadia Board of Realtors was informed every step of the way to ensure they
informed the local real estate agents and prospective buyers that no actual
designation results directly from the survey. If a property owner wanted to demolish
their house, they would still go through the existing Certificate of Demolition
process, which requires a full evaluation and environmental review of any property
that is 50 years of age or older. This process has been in place since 2011.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 4 of 12
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2019 , on the project. There
were 43 public speakers at the meeting, 41 of whom expressed opposition to the
Ordinance as written. At the conclusion of public testimony and discussion, the Planning
Commission took several specific votes:
1. The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council amend the Historic
Preservation Ordinance to become a voluntary program.
2. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the
Historic Preservation Survey list of eligible properties.
3. The Commission voted 4-0 (one Commissioner abstained) to recommend that if
the City Council does not convert the Historic Preservation Ordinance to a
voluntary program for individual properties, that the Council should remove multi-
family and commercially-zoned properties that are eligible only for local
designation.
4. The Commission voted 5-0 to forward all of their individual comments to the City
Council.
Each of the Commission’s recommendations is reflected in the analysis below and is
shown in greater detail (including their individual comments) in the meeting minutes
(Attachment No. 5).
All attendees at the January 8 meeting were informed that the City Council meeting on
this topic would be held on February 19, 2019. Following the Planning Commission
hearing, a certified bulk mailing of the notice for the February 19, 2019, meeting was sent
to every property owner on the list of eligible properties. In addition, the notice has been
posted in the Arcadia Weekly as both an official public hearing notice and via a front page
article, sent to all individuals on the City’s “interested parties” list for this topic, posted on
the City’s website (in English and Chinese), posted on the City’s Social Media accounts,
distributed by the Arcadia Association of Realtors, and posted on Nextdoor.com and
WeChat.
ANALYSIS
The goal of the City’s draft Historic Preservation Ordinance is to recognize, preserve, and
protect historic resources in the City, and safeguard Arcadia’s heritage by protecting
resources that reflect elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, architectural, and
archaeological history. The originally proposed Ordinance also included a list of 176
resources that were identified as individually eligible for listing at the federal, state, and/or
local level – refer to Attachment No. 6. The Historic Resources Survey list was intended
as an informational tool for the City to understand where the potential historic resources
are located in the City. The list includes a brief description of each property or resource
deemed to be eligible, as well as a recommendation on what historic “status” the property
may be eligible for. There are three levels of historic status: National level , State level,
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 5 of 12
and the local level. Various criteria are already in place to evaluate resources against
both the National and State criteria, but, because Arcadia does not yet have a Historic
Preservation Ordinance, there is not yet any established local criteria.
Being on the list does not result in automatic designation. Because the inventory is a list
of survey findings (not a list of designated properties), there is currently no mechanism
for opting off or onto the list. If the City adopts an Ordinance that includes federal, state,
and local criteria, then an architectural historian or qualified historian could provide a
detailed evaluation of the building or structure and report on whether it is a significant
historic resource. Any such reports prior to adopting an ordinance would be purely
speculative, as the criteria may be amended (or omitted) prior to adoption.
The 176 potential resources on the eligibility list consist of 164 Individual Buildings and
12 Non-Building Resources. Of the 164 Individual Buildings, 126 are residential, 17 are
commercial and 21 are public or private institutional buildings. Much of the public
testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, and in correspondence received prior to
and since the hearing, is in opposition to the list. The Planning Commission minutes
(Attachment No. 5) summarize the comments made at the hearing, but in general there
is concern that being on this eligibility list is a threat to property values, limits choice and
options for owners, is a detriment to potential buyers, and infringes on property rights.
Following testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to remove the list from
consideration. That is the recommendation now in front of the City Council.
In addition to the recommendation to eliminate the list, the Planning Commission voted
to adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance, if the Ordinance was voluntary or
“consensual”. This would essentially mean that property owners could voluntarily choose
to nominate their properties for consideration, but that owner consent would be required
to do so. The Commission also felt it was important to have the ability for neighbors or a
group to be able to establish a historic district if the appropriate levels of consent are
reached per the Ordinance. If the Planning Commission’s recommendations are adopted,
the proposed ordinance would include the following, as described in further detail below:
1. Establish a Historic Preservation Commission
2. Establish procedures for designations of an individual historic resource as a
historic landmark
3. Establish procedures for designations of a historic district
4. Establish a process for Alterations to Historic Resources (Major, Minor, and
Negligible Alterations)
5. Establish Incentives for Historic Preservation such as the Mills Act Tax
Abatement Program
Currently, before a building can be demolished to accommodate a new development, a
full historical evaluation is required for any historic resource that is of at least 50 years of
age. This is a standard CEQA requirement and will still be required whether or not a local
Historic Preservation Ordinance is adopted. Under this proposed Ordinance, the qualified
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 6 of 12
Historian or Architectural Historian would be required to evaluate the building or structure
against the City’s proposed historic criteria as well as against the CEQA Guidelines. The
additional work required to evaluate the building using a local Ordinance is fairly nominal,
as much of the research is duplicative of the CEQA process.
1. Historic Preservation Commission
Under the proposed Ordinance, the Planning Commission would act as the Historic
Preservation Commission for providing the City Council with recommendations regarding
the designation of historic resources, adoption of preservation policies, and approval of
the Mills Act applications. As an existing Commission with land use experience and
knowledge, the Planning Commission is equipped for this role. It was determined that
based on the expected volume of projects that would be in front of a Historic Preservation
Commission, that a new body was not necessary. The Ordinance does not require that
any of the members come from a specific discipline related to historic preservation, but
training will be provided and this issue would be considered over time as Planning
Commissioners are appointed to serve.
2. Designation Procedures for a Historic Landmark
Under the Planning Commission recommendation, the Ordinance would be voluntary so
only a property owner has the ability to nominate a property or properties as an individual
historic landmark. Under the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance originally proposed,
any person or group, including the City, would have had the ability to nominate a property
or properties for historic landmark or historic district. However, even under the original
recommendation, with the exception of very rare circumstances, a property could not be
designated without the consent of the owner.
This is a decision point for the City Council. The draft Ordinance has been written to
require owner consent for any designation of an individual property. If the City Council
wishes for there to be some safeguard in place to protect certain exceptional resources,
the Ordinance could authorize the Historic Preservation Commission or the City Council
to call up the request for review. In this option, the owner’s consent would still be sought,
but the City Council would have the power to revoke an owner’s objection to historic
landmark or district designation, by a supermajority vote of 4 -1, if it determines that the
designation constitutes a social benefit to Arcadia’s citizens that outweighs the private
burden of designation, and designation does not damage the property owner
unreasonably in comparison to the benefits designation provides to the community. This
provision was included in the original draft Ordinance to protect the City’s most
exceptional historic resources, and is not intended to be a common occurrence.
3. Designation Procedures for a Historic District
The proposed designation process for establishing a historic district is different from a
local landmark. In order for a historic district to be designated, the draft Historic
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 7 of 12
Preservation Ordinance proposes that at least 60% of the properties within the proposed
district must contribute to the historical significance of the district. Assuming at least 60%
of the properties within a potential district are contributors to that district, the next required
step would be to obtain written consent of 75% of the property owners within the district.
If a proposed district meets these two thresholds, it would then be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission and then by the City Council for official adoption . So, although
the Ordinance does not specifically identify certain districts, a district could be created
anywhere in the City where these thresholds can be met.
Many of the surrounding cities only require a simple majority (i.e. 50% +1) of owners
within the district to consent to historic district designation. During the initial study
sessions on this topic, the City Council felt that it should be a higher percentage, and felt
a 75% owner approval was more appropriate for Arcadia. This is a high threshold to meet.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation did not propose to alter this suggested
process for establishing a historic district.
4. Alteration to Historic Resources
The proposed Ordinance establishes a process for reviewing alterations to a designated
historic resource or a contributor to a designated historic district. Minor projects are
subject to administrative review by staff or by one of the five designated Homeowners
Associations, and major projects are subject to a Commission -level review. Any addition
of square footage that is visible from the public right -of-way is considered a major
alteration under the draft Ordinance. If a property is formally designated as a historic
resource, the proposed alteration to the property would have to be evaluated by a
qualified historian or architectural historian to ensure the proposed change does not alt er
the historical significance of the building. If the property owner still chooses to carry out
an alteration that has been determined to impact the historic significance of the building,
the City may withhold approval of the project up to the 180 days to identify project
alternatives. All alterations would be processed under a new application created for this
process, called a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Some examples of the different types of alterations are:
Major Alteration (Historic Preservation Commission Review): Any demolition,
rebuild, or relocation of an individual historic resource or a contributing resource in
a designated historic district. Any additions visible from the public right -of-way.
Minor Alteration (City Staff Review): Alternations or removal of insignificant
exterior features such as additions (not visible from public right-of-way), window
and doors change-outs, and minor façade work.
If no eligibility list is to be adopted, it is important to note that this section only applies to
designated individual resources and/or contributing resources to a designated historic
district.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 8 of 12
5. Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program allows qualifying property owners to
receive a potential tax reduction in exchange for the r ehabilitation, restoration, and
maintenance of their historic property. Although this is a statewide program, it is
administered by local governments. If the City chooses to adopt a Mills Act program, Mills
Act contracts may be available to owners of designated historic landmarks and
contributing properties in designated historic districts. A Mills Act contract typically results
in a reduction in property taxes of between 30-70%. The term of the contract is 10 years.
If the City Council chooses to participate, the City Council will determine on an annual
basis how many Mills Act contracts it will accept and may set a financial cap on the
program. Each City administers its Mills Act Program differently. It is likely that the City
would start its Mills Act participation as a “pilot” program, accepting a small number of
properties into the program for the first several years. This would be done to monitor the
time and staffing demands, interest in the program, and financial impact of administering
the program.
The Mills Act Program can result in less property taxes being paid. However, since the
City receives approximately 9% of every property tax dollar, the impact of the Mills Act on
City Revenue is not a dollar for dollar comparison. All relevant taxing entiti es would take
less on a tax bill for a property in the program. That being said, as mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the City would likely start participation in the Mills Act Program as a
pilot project, and would monitor the financial impact carefully for the first several years, to
determine the cost of participation. It is not anticipated that participation would lead to a
substantial impact on City revenue, but it could be a strong incentive for some property
owners to voluntarily designate their properties for preservation.
Proposed Text Amendments to the Development Code
A new section of the Development Code will be added to reflect the draft Historic
Preservation Ordinance – refer to Attachment No. 2 – and to incorporate certain
processes into the current rules for development. Revisions within the new section include
the permit processing procedures for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Major or Minor
Alterations) into the Development Code, as well as the procedures for determining the
qualifying age of a structure, and the full text of the Historic Preservation Ordinance itself.
FINDINGS
Pursuant to Development Code Section 9108.03.060 Text Amendments may be
approved if all the following findings can be satisfied.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan(s).
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
and the associated text amendments are consistent with the General Plan in
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 9 of 12
preserving the physical aspects of Arcadia that are highly valued by the residents
and business community. Within the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Resources Element of the General Plan, Goal PR-9 specifically encourages the
“retention and proper stewardship of historical and cultural resources”. This Goal
includes Policy PR-9.1, and PR 9.5 through 9.7, that specifically address historic
preservation and incentives for protection. The proposed Ordinance would
safeguard Arcadia’s heritage by providing the opportunity to protect resources that
reflect elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, architectural, and
archaeological history. Furthermore, the Ordinance would provide an ability to
protect the character of the neighborhoods through the preservation of their
character-defining features. Therefore, the proposed amendments will be
consistent with the General Plan and no specific plans will be affected by the
proposed amendments.
2. For Development Code amendments only, the proposed amendment is
internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development
Code.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
and text amendments will not be in conflict with the Development Code and will be
consistent with other applicable provisions as it relates to establishing priorities for
preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation efforts within the city. The Ordinance
provides processes that can be used by the residents and City Council to create
districts and individual landmarks important to the City’s history. Therefore, the
proposed text amendments will be consistent with other applicable provisions of
the Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance is covered by the “General Rule
Exemption” of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for projects that can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action in question may have a
significant effect on the environment per CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). The project is also
exempt under Section 15308, Class 8, as no construction activities or other direct physical
changes could result from the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance – refer to
Attachment No. 6. The Historic Preservation Ordinance would not result in the relaxation
of standards and would not allow for environmental degradation. Conversely, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance would establish protections and procedures for the preservation
of cultural resources.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
There have been numerous public meetings on this topic, and notices have been sent
throughout the process and through the various drafts of the Ordinance. Most recently, a
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 10 of 12
letter was sent to the 176 affected owners on November 19, 2018, and the public hearing
notice was sent to every property owner in the City on November 26, 2018, and published
in the Arcadia Weekly on December 13, 2018. Another letter was sent to all 176 owners
with properties on the eligibility list through a certified bulk mail process.
Through the process of developing the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, a number
of property owners have questioned how to remove their properties from the list and they
have submitted either a letter or email in opposition to the proposed Ordinance – refer to
Attachment No. 6 for the materials submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting,
and Attachment No. 3 for materials provided since the Planning Commission meeting.
The primary concern on the part of most of these owners is that by being listed, their use
of their property may one day be compromised and/or the overall value of their property
may by diminished by the listing. Even if the list is ultimately approved, the listing itself
does not make the property a historic resource. It just means it is eligible and wi ll need to
be studied further to determine the process for the property to be demolished or added
on to. Rather than waiting for a final decision from the City Council on the draft Ordinance,
a number of property owners have hired a historian to evaluate t heir properties now, in
advance of the Ordinance being completed. The hope from these owners is that by
providing a report that states their building is not historic, the City will remove their
property from the list. There were comments made at the Planning Commission hearing
that residents had received conflicting information from the staff and/or information that
the list had been “frozen” and only the City Council could change it. It is important to
understand the context of how the list has been treate d.
The studies that have been commissioned by residents are good information, that
correctly can be used to evaluate their properies for historical significance at the state
and federal levels, but they cannot effectively evaluate things locally because t here are
no locally adopted guidelines yet. Because the City Council has not yet acted on the draft
Ordinance, there is no criteria approved for Arcadia. Similarly, the list of properties that
has been developed is just a draft list. Until these items are acted upon by the City
Council, it is not known whether the Ordinance will be approved, and, if it is, what the
local criteria will be. As such, while the studies being developed include good information
that may show that the property does not reach the Federal or State level, these studies
cannot remove these structures from the draft list because these structures may still have
local significance. If the Ordinance is approved in some form by the City Council, and the
Council does adopt local criteria, these resources will need to be evaluated against that
local criteria. For existing studies, this could be accomplished through a supplemental
addendum to the existing report.
Despite the above, the Planning Commission has recommended that the list be
eliminated and this is the recommendation in front of the City Council. If this
recommendation is adopted by the City Council, then there would be no list and much of
this analysis would be moot. However, it is important to note that regardless of whether
or not there is a pre-designated list of potentially historic resources, the City will still need
to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by requiring properties
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 11 of 12
over 50 years in age to provide a historic evaluation if a property is to be demolished. This
has been a standard practice for years. All studies that have been done by residents can
certainly be used to inform this process, if a demolition is proposed.
One exception to these comments is that City staff d id receive information from the
property owner at 841 Singingwood Drive that the house does not mee t the qualifying
age to be evaluated. The house was actually built in 1978, and was 38 years old at the
time the Citywide survey was conducted. As a result, if the City Council chooses to the
adopt the list or use it in other ways, this property should be removed from the list.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is not anticipated that the adoption of the Ordinance itself will have a significant fiscal
impact. To date, the City has spent approximately $150,000 on studies, public outreach,
and developing the various draft documents. Once the Ordinance is adopted, there will
be a Fee Resolution developed that formally approves the various fees and application
costs for nominations of historic resources, historic districts, participation in the Mills Act,
etc. However, it is clear that the City Council is interested in incentives for participation in
the preservation of resources, so the adoption of the various incentives described below
will determine how the fees and application costs will ultimately look. For these reasons,
a fee resolution will be returned to the City Council at a later date for review and approval.
There are several incentives that are under consideration by the City Council that may
have a fiscal impact. First, if the City participates in the Mills Act program, there will be a
fiscal impact that will be reported and provided to the City Council at the time of
implementation. It is recommended that Mills Act participation be considered as a pilot
project and the financial implications of participation be considered and monitored after
each project.
In addition, other incentives that have been suggested by the City Council are a fee waiver
for applications to designate landmarks or h istoric districts, and for participation in the
Mills Act. While this is not anticipated to be a large number of projects or a large fiscal
impact, it will be important to each individual applicant. Finally, another incentive that has
been suggested by the Staff and discussed by the City Council is to offer a 50% reduction
in building permit fees for construction projects on designated properties that enhance or
preserve the character of the designated property.
It should be noted that there are potential private funding sources (or potentially public
sources of funds such as grants) to assist residents or applicants with nominations or
properties or preservation or properties that are nominated. While this is not
recommended to be part of the Ordinance itself, the City will explore if there are funding
sources that could be used to generally support and protect historic preservation efforts
with interested property owners. This could involve everything from acquisition of key
properties to grants for upkeep, to assistance with the historic studies and nomination
Historic Preservation Ordinance
February 19, 2019
Page 12 of 12
processes. All of the incentives listed above, in addition to potential fees and application
costs, are further described in Attachment No. 4.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2359 amending various
Sections of Article IX, Chapter 1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code (the “Development
Code”), with an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), to
implement a Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Attachment No. 1: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachment No. 2: Ordinance No. 2359, including Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachment No. 3: Public Comments received after Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment No. 4: Revised Fees and Potential Incentives
Attachment No. 5: Minutes from the January 8, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment No. 6: January 8, 2019, Planning Commission Packet, includes:
Staff Report
Draft Ordinance Provided to Planning Commission
List of Properties Eligible as Historic Resources
Historic Context Statement
Historic Preservation Fact Sheet
Comments Received from Public Prior to Planning Commission
Meeting
Proposed Fees and Incentives
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
November 2016 TOC-1 Table of Contents
Planning Commission’s Recommendation
Division 3:
Regulations Applicable to All Zones – Site Planning
and General Development Standards
3
Table of Contents
Page
Section 9103.01 – Site Planning and General Development Standards ............................................................................... 3-1
9103.01.010 Purpose and Intent .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1
9103.01.020 Measuring Distances .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
9103.01.030 Measuring Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio ....................................................................................................... 3-1
9103.01.040 Measuring Lot Coverage ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2
9103.01.050 Height Measurements and Exceptions ............................................................................................................... 3-2
9103.01.060 Setback Measurements and Exceptions ............................................................................................................. 3-4
9103.01.070 Vehicular Visibility Standards .............................................................................................................................. 3-7
9103.01.080 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Screening ................................................................................................ 3-7
9103.01.090 Access ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-8
9103.01.100 Solar Energy System .......................................................................................................................................... 3-8
9103.01.110 Solar Energy System, Small Residential Rooftop ............................................................................................... 3-9
9103.01.120 Exterior Lighting ................................................................................................................................................ 3-10
9103.01.130 Trash Enclosures .............................................................................................................................................. 3-11
Section 9103.03 – Canopy Structures .................................................................................................................................... 3-13
9103.03.010 Canopy Structures in Residential Zones ........................................................................................................... 3-13
9103.03.020 Canopy Structures in All Other Zones .............................................................................................................. 3-13
9103.03.030 Repair and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... 3-13
Section 9103.05 – Fences, Walls, and Gates ......................................................................................................................... 3-15
9103.05.010 Purpose and Intent ............................................................................................................................................ 3-15
9103.05.020 Permit Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 3-15
9103.05.030 Development Standards ................................................................................................................................... 3-15
9103.05.040 Prohibited Fencing Materials in All Zones ......................................................................................................... 3-21
Section 9103.07 – Off-Street Parking and Loading ............................................................................................................... 3-23
9103.07.010 Purpose and Intent ............................................................................................................................................ 3-23
9103.07.020 Applicability ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-23
9103.07.030 Permit Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 3-24
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
2
9103.07.040 Exemptions ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-24
9103.07.050 Off-Street Parking for Residential Uses .......................................................................................................... 3-24
9103.07.060 Off-Street Parking for Non-Residential Uses ................................................................................................. 3-28
9103.07.070 Mixed-Use (Nonresidential and Residential Combined) Parking Standards .................................................. 3-34
9103.07.080 Parking Area Design Standards Applicable to All Zones ............................................................................... 3-34
9103.07.090 Shared/Joint Use, Off-site Parking, and In-Lieu Parking................................................................................ 3-36
9103.07.100 Valet Parking .................................................................................................................................................. 3-37
9103.07.110 Parking Structures .......................................................................................................................................... 3-37
9103.07.120 Prohibition on Commercial Vehicle Parking in Residential Zones ................................................................. 3-38
9103.07.130 Landscape Standards for Parking Lots .......................................................................................................... 3-38
9103.07.140 Parking for Electric and Alternative Fuel Vehicles ......................................................................................... 3-39
9103.07.150 Bicycle Parking Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 3-39
9103.07.160 Off-Street Loading .......................................................................................................................................... 3-40
Section 9103.09 – Landscaping .............................................................................................................................................. 3-43
9103.09.010 Purpose and Intent ......................................................................................................................................... 3-43
9103.09.020 Applicability .................................................................................................................................................... 3-43
9103.09.030 Landscape Plan Required; What Constitutes Landscape Materials .............................................................. 3-43
9103.09.040 Landscape Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 3-43
9103.09.050 Landscape Irrigation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 3-46
Section 9103.11 – Signs .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-47
9103.11.010 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-47
9103.11.020 Applicability .................................................................................................................................................... 3-48
9103.11.030 General Provisions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-48
9103.11.040 Exempt Signs ................................................................................................................................................. 3-49
9103.11.050 Prohibited Signs ............................................................................................................................................. 3-50
9103.11.060 Allowable Area for Identification ..................................................................................................................... 3-51
9103.11.070 Permanent Signs by Zone – Locations and Allowed Sign Area ..................................................................... 3-51
9103.11.080 Regulations Specific to Types of Permanent Signs ....................................................................................... 3-66
9103.11.090 Signs for Specific Uses .................................................................................................................................. 3-67
9103.11.100 Temporary Signs ............................................................................................................................................ 3-68
9103.11.110 Iconic Signs .................................................................................................................................................... 3-71
9103.11.120 Procedures for Sign Permits, Exemptions, and Revocations ......................................................................... 3-72
9103.11.130 Comprehensive Sign Program ....................................................................................................................... 3-75
9103.11.140 Sign Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................... 3-76
9103.11.150 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................................... 3-77
9103.11.160 Nonconforming Signs ..................................................................................................................................... 3-77
9103.11.170 Abandoned Signs ........................................................................................................................................... 3-78
9103.11.180 Illegal Signs .................................................................................................................................................... 3-78
9103.11.190 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-79
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3
Section 9103.12 – Outdoor Displays ...................................................................................................................................... 3-89
9103.12.010 Regulations for the C-G, C-R, C-M, CBD, DMU, and MU Zones ................................................................... 3-89
Section 9103.13 – Performance Standards ........................................................................................................................... 3-91
9103.13.010 Purpose and Intent ......................................................................................................................................... 3-91
9103.13.020 Dust and Dirt .................................................................................................................................................. 3-91
9103.13.030 Smoke ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-91
9103.13.040 Electromagnetic Disturbances and Radiation ................................................................................................ 3-91
9103.13.050 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................................................... 3-92
9103.13.060 Heat and Humidity .......................................................................................................................................... 3-92
9103.13.070 Light and Glare ............................................................................................................................................... 3-92
9103.13.080 Vibration ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-92
9103.13.090 Odors ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-92
Section 9103.15 – Density Bonuses for Affordable and Senior Housing ........................................................................... 3-93
9103.15.010 Purpose and Applicability ............................................................................................................................... 3-93
9103.15.020 Density Bonus ................................................................................................................................................ 3-93
9103.15.030 Incentives and Concessions .......................................................................................................................... 3-93
9103.15.040 Application Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 3-94
9103.15.050 Location and Type of Designated Uses ......................................................................................................... 3-94
9103.15.060 Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-95
Section 9103.17– Historic Preservation ................................................................................................................................. 3-96
9103.17.010 Title ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-96
9103.17.020 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-96
9103.17.030 Applicabilty ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-97
9103.17.040 Historic Preservation Commission ................................................................................................................. 3-97
9103.17.050 Historic Resources Survey ............................................................................................................................. 3-97
9103.17.060 Local Eligibility and Designation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-97
9103.17.070 Designation Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 3-98
9103.17.080 Alterations to Historic Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-99
9103.17.090 Certificates of Economic Hardship ............................................................................................................... 3-103
9103.17.100 Incentives for Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................. 3-103
9103.17.110 Appeals ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-105
9103.17.120 Duty to Keep in Good Repair ....................................................................................................................... 3-105
9103.17.130 Ordinary Maintenance and Repair ............................................................................................................... 3-105
9103.17.140 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………..3-106
9103.17.150 Enforcement Penalties ................................................................................................................................. 3-106
9103.17.150 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3-106
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
4
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-5
9103.17 – Historic Preservation
Subsections:
9103.17.010 Title
9103.17.020 Purpose
9103.17.030 Applicability
9103.17.040 Historic Preservation Commission
9103.17.050 Historic Resources Survey
9103.17.060 Local Eligibility and Designation Criteria
9103.17.070 Designation Procedures
9103.17.080 Alterations to Historic Resources
9103.17.090 Certificates of Economic Hardship
9103.17.100 Incentives for Historic Preservation
9103.17.110 Appeals
9103.17.120 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
9103.17.130 Ordinary Maintenance and Repair
9103.17.140 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
9103.17.150 Enforcement Penalties
9103.17.160 Definitions
9103.17.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as the Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance.
9103.17.020 Purpose
The Arcadia City Council acknowledges that the recognition, preservation, protection, and reuse of historic resources are required
in the interests of the health, prosperity, safety, social and cultural enrichment, general welfare, and economic well -being of the
people of Arcadia. The designation and preservation of historic resources, and the regulation of alterations, additions, repairs,
removal, demolition, or new construction to perpetuate the historic character of historic resources, is declared to be a public purpose
of the city.
Therefore, the purposes of this Chapter include the following:
A. Enabling informed planning decisions regarding the treatment of properties that contribute to the city’s character or reflect
its historical and architectural development;
B. Establishing priorities for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation efforts within the city;
C. Providing City planners with baseline information about potential historic resources from which to manage new
development;
D. Safeguarding Arcadia’s heritage by protecting resources that reflect elements of the city's cultural, social, economic,
architectural, and archaeological history;
E. Deterring demolition, misuse, or neglect of designated historic landmarks, designated historic districts (and their
contributing resources), and potential historic landmarks, which represent important links to the past of Arcadia,
California, or the nation;
F. Providing the public with a better understanding of and appreciation for the built environment as a tangible link to
Arcadia’s history;
G. Promoting the use of historic resources, especially for the education, appreciation, and general welfare of the people of
Arcadia;
H. Protecting and enhancing the city's attractiveness to residents and visitors, and supporting economic development.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-6
9103.17.030 Applicability
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all historic resources, including buildings, structures, objects, sites, and historic districts
within the city.
9103.17.040 Historic Preservation Commission
The Arcadia Planning Commission is responsible for providing City Council w ith recommendations regarding the designation of
historic resources, adoption of preservation policies, and approval of Mills Act applications. The Planning Commission, herei n
referred to as the Commission, is also responsible for reviewing and approving Certificates of Appropriateness in accordance with
Section 9103.17.080(B) of this Chapter. The Commission shall have and exercise the powers, perform the duties, and maintain
the qualifications pursuant to Part 5 (Planning Commission), Chapter 2, Article II of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
9103.17.050 Historic Resources Survey
(Note: Per the Planning Commission’s recommendation this section would be deleted, unless the City Council
keeps the list).
The City underwent a comprehensive, citywide historic resources survey in 2015. The findings of the survey produced a list of
potential historic resources. The list is intended to be used by the City for future planning and decision -making and to inform
property owners about the potential historic significance of their properties. Inclusion on the list does not automatically constitute
a determination of significance for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ).
Properties identified as potentially individually eligible through survey will still be evaluated on an individual basis for historic
significance as development is proposed. The list of potentially eligible historic resources is incorporated by reference into this
Chapter and may be amended as the City deems necessary.
9103.17.060 Local Eligibility and Designation Criteria
A. Criteria for Designation
Historic Landmark. On the recommendation of the Commission, the City Council may designate an individual resource (building,
structure, object, or site) if it meets one or more of the following local eligibility criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Arcadia’s or California’s
history;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of
master, or possesses high artistic values;
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the city or state.
Historic District. On the recommendation of the Commission, the City Council may designate a historic district if it meets one or
more of the four criteria in Section 9103.17.060(A) and:
1. It possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically
or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
2. A minimum of 60 percent of the buildings within the proposed historic district contribute to the district’s significance.
B. Automatic Designation Consideration
Any property individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources shall be
automatically considered an individually eligible historic resource by the City.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-7
C. Considerations for Evaluating Properties – Age
A resource considered for listing as a local historic landmark must be at least 45 years of age, unless it can be demonstrate d that
the resource has achieved exceptional importance within the last 45 years.
D. Consideration for Evaluating Properties – Integrity
In order for a resource to be eligible for designation as a local landmark or historic district, the resource must retain suf ficient
integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics that
existed during the time period within which the resource attained significance. Only after significance has been established should
the issue of integrity be addressed. There are seven aspects of integrity, as defined by the National Register: location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Since significance thresholds associated with local listing are ge nerally
less rigid than those associated with listing at the state or national levels, a greater degree of flexibility shall be provided when
evaluating the integrity of a locally eligible historic resource, as opposed to one eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers. For this reason, it is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for lis ting in the
National or California Registers, but may still be eligible for listing at the local level. Integrity shall be determined with reference to
the particular characteristics that support the resource’s eligibility under the appropriate criteria of significance.
9103.17.070 Designation Procedures
A. Application for Nomination
1. Any person or group, including the City, Only the property owner(s) of the property(ies), or their authorized agents, may
apply for request the designation of a historic resource as a historic landmark or district by submitting an application to
the City.
2. All applications shall be completed using a form provided by the City and shall contain all required information, including
the following:
a. For individual resources, a historic resource evaluation report completed by a qualified historic preservation
consultant;
b. For historic districts, a historic resources survey report completed by a qualified historic preservation consultant;
c. Required fees per City’s Fee Resolution;
d. The City may require the applicant to submit additional information regarding the historic significance of the
resource, including but not limited to photographs, plans, deeds, permits, and any other materials that may provide
pertinent information about the resource.
B. Initial Application Review
1. Completeness Review. Within 30 days of filing, City staff shall review all applications for completeness and accuracy
before they are accepted as complete. The applicant shall be notified by letter whether the application is either complete
and being processed or is incomplete and additional information, including but not limited to the information listed in
Section A.2, must be provided. If an applicant fails to provide the additional information within 30 days following the
date of the letter, or shorter time frame as determined by the Director or designee, the application shall expire and be
deemed withdrawn without any further action by the City, unless an extension is approved by the Director or designee
for good cause shown.
C. Owner Notification. After determining the application is complete, City staff shall notify the owner(s) of record by letter that
an application for designation has been submitted for their property within ten (10) days of reviewing the application deeming
the application complete.
C. Owner Consent to Designation. Prior to scheduling the matter for consideration by the Commission, a written statement by
the property owner in the case of historic landmark designation, or written statements by 75 percent of property owners in the
case of historic district designation, shall consent to such designation. In the case of an individual property, if the owner does
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-8
not consent to the designation, the application shall be automatically withdrawn, unless the Commission or Council calls up
the request for Review, as specified in Section 9108.07.030.
D. Moratorium on Permits. No alteration or demolition permits for an individually eligible historic resource or contributor to an
eligible historic district shall be issued after an application for designation is submitted. The moratorium on permits shall
continue through the process of historic landmark or district designation, until a final decision to adopt (or not adopt) the
designation has been made by City Council.
E. Commission Review. Applications for approval of historic landmark and district nominations shall be reviewed by the
Commission. The Commission shall hold a public meeting to determine if the property meets one or more of the criteria
established in Section 9103.17.060(A) of this Chapter. The public hearing shall be noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13
(Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. After a determination is made regarding the proposed
designation, the Commission shall submit a report and recommendation to the City Council that the application be approved
or denied. Within ten (10) days of the public hearing, the Commission shall notify the applicant(s) and owner(s) of record by
letter of its determination.
F. City Council. City Council has the sole authority to designate a historic resource as a historic landmark or district. Nominations
recommended for approval by the Commission shall be reviewed by the Council at a public hearing. The hearing shall be
noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. At the
hearing, the Council shall adopt or reject historic designation. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the Council shall notify the
applicant(s) and owner(s) of record by letter of the designation.
G. City Council Supersedes Owner’s Objection to Designation. The Council shall have the power to revoke an owner’s
objection to historic landmark if, by a supermajority vote (4-1), it determines the resource satisfies the following:
1. It meets one or more of the eligibility criteria established in Section 9103.17.060(A), AND
2. Its designation as a local landmark is a social benefit to Arcadia’s citizens that outweighs the private burden of
designation, and designation does not damage the property owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefits
designation provides to the community.
G. Rescission of Designation. Once a historic landmark or district has been designated, it shall not may be repealed by the
City Council. unless it is found that the evidence used to establish designation was erroneous, or the designated resource no
longer meets the criteria set forth in Section 9103.17.060(A). A resource cannot lose its designation status merely due to
degradation by neglect. The process of rescission shall be considered a discretionary action under CEQA.
9103.17.080 Alterations to Historic Resources
A. General Requirements
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) is required for major and minor alterations that may adversely affect the
significance of a designated historic landmark resource or contributor to a designated historic district. and for major
alterations that may adversely affect the significance of an individually eligible historic resource.
2. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for minor alterations to individually eligible historic resources or negligible
alterations to any historic resource (designated or eligible). These alterations may be issued a waiver.
2. Demolition of or a major addition to a non-contributing resource, or infill in a designated historic district outside of the
City’s designated Home Owners Associations will be subject to the design review process described in Section 9107.19
(Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. All other alterations to non -contributing
resources are exempt from review and may be issued a waiver. Once a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued,
City staff may inspect the work being undertaken to ensure that it complies with the approved Certificate of
Appropriateness.
3. No permit shall be issued for alteration of an individual historic resource landmark or contributing resource in a designated
historic district, or demolition of a non-contributing resource in a designated historic district until a Certificate of
Appropriateness or waiver has been issued in accordance with this Section.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-9
B. Levels of Review
The type of alteration being proposed and the type of resource affected by the alteration will determine the level of review required.
Unless the alteration is exempt from review and issued a waiver, a Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) is required for review by
City staff or the Commission. From time to time as circumstances warrant, the City may, by resolution, modify the list of act ions
deemed to qualify for review by City staff or the Commission.
1. Designated Historic Landmarks. Major alterations affecting designated historic landmarks require a C of A and review
by the Commission. The approval or denial of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
Minor alterations affecting designated landmarks require a C of A and review by City staff.
2. Designated Historic Districts. Major alterations affecting contributing resources in designated historic districts require
a C of A and review by the Commission. The approval or denial of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary
action under CEQA. Minor alterations affecting contributing resources in designated historic districts require a C of A and
review by City staff. Demolition of or major additions to non-contributing resources, and infill in designated historic districts
outside of the City’s designated Home Owners Associations (HOAs) require design review pursuant to Section 9107.19
(Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Alterations (with the exception of demolition
and major additions) affecting non-contributing resources in designated historic districts outside of HOAs are exempt
from review and may be issued a waiver.
a. Note: Contributing and non-contributing properties within the City’s designated HOAs are not subject to the City’s
design review process. However, the HOAs shall adhere to and apply the Design Guidelines as well as the HOAs’
enabling resolution in their design review process and forward a recommendation to the Commission/City staff
regarding the design of the alteration, addition, or new infill in the designated historic district. The City shall have
final authority on the approval or denial of the design.
3. Individually Eligible Historic Resources. Major alterations affecting individually eligible historic resources require a C
of A and review by City staff. The approval or denial of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary action
under CEQA. Minor alterations affecting individually eligible historic resources are exempt from review and may be issued
a waiver.
4. 3. Negligible alterations affecting all designated historic resources (designated and eligible individual resources and
resources in designated historic districts) are exempt from review and may be issued a waiver.
C. A “major alteration” is defined as:
1. Any demolition, rebuild, or relocation of an individual historic landmark resource or contributing resource in a designated
historic district. Certificate of Appropriateness applications for the demolition or relocation of designated historic
resources shall comply with procedures set forth in Section 9103.17.080(J)(K).
2. Any undertaking that significantly alters or changes a designated historic resource’s street-facing façade or side façades
visible from the public right-of-way, including major changes to or additions of fenestration openings; the application of
new exterior wall cladding or coating which changes the appearance, design, or texture of a property; and the addition
of any other architectural features.
3. Any addition of square footage to a designated historic resource that is visible from the public right-of-way.
4. Infill in a designated historic district. Infill in a designated historic district requires design review pursuant to Section
9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
5. Demolition of or a major addition to a non-contributing resource in a designated historic district. Demolition of and major
additions to non-contributors requires design review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article
IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
6. Any other undertaking determined major by the City.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-10
D. A “minor alteration” is defined as:
1. Any removal of insignificant exterior features of a designated historic resource, including additions, doors, windows, and
exterior siding material that are non-original or otherwise lack historic integrity.
2. Any undertaking requiring a permit that does not change substantially the exterior character -defining features of a
designated historic resource, including minor additions on secondary façades.
3. Any undertaking not requiring a permit that materially alters significant features of a designated historic resource or that
may adversely affect the significance of a historic resource, including replacement of windows and doors in existing
openings or resurfacing exterior finishes (i.e. stucco in a noticeably different texture) on street-facing façades.
4. Any undertaking to the environmental setting or landscape of a designated historic landmark or property within a
designated historic district if the setting is significant to the historic resource and has been defined as significant in th e
nomination for the resource.
5. In designated historic districts, demolition or alteration of garages and other ancillary structures built within the period of
significance on both contributing and non-contributing properties, and new construction of such structures on any
designated historic property (district contributors and individual properties).
6. Any other undertaking determined minor by the City.
E. A “negligible alteration” is defined as:
1. All work that is entirely interior and does not affect the exterior of a designated historic resource, except for interior
features that are specifically mentioned as character-defining features in a landmark nomination adopted by the City.
2. Installation of rooftop equipment, including solar panels, not visible from the public right-of-way.
3. Re-roofing in a different material that replicates the existing or original roofing.
4. Window and door repair to correct deterioration, decay, or damage to existing original windows or doors.
5. If original windows and doors are beyond repair, replacement windows and doors matching the appearance of the original
windows and doors.
6. Repair of existing historic ornament (including, but not limited to, porches, cornices, plaster work, and eaves).
7. Any additional ordinary maintenance and repair to correct deterioration, decay, and/or damage to existing historic
material.
8. Replacement of a non-historic garage door with one that is compatible in terms of design and material, and minimizes
its visual impacts on the character-defining features of the historic resource.
9. Seismic upgrades that minimize the alteration of character-defining features of a historic resource.
10. Any other undertaking determined negligible by the City.
F. Application
1. If a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with this Section, a Certificate of Appropriateness application
shall be filed with the City.
2. All applications must include the following:
a. A report by a qualified preservation consultant detailing the project’s compliance with, and potential deviation from,
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (a Standards compliance report).
b. For new construction, additions, and relocations, plans and specifications showing the existing and proposed
exterior appearances;
c. Photographs (including views of all façades) of the building affected by the proposed project. Photographs shall be
in color and include close-up views of any specific elements under consideration (i.e. windows or doors if alterations
are proposed) and views of surrounding properties;
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-11
d. If in a designated historic district, relationship of the proposed work to the surrounding environment;
e. For new construction in designated historic districts, relationship to the existing scale, massing, architectural style,
site and streetscape, landscaping, and signage;
f. Any other information the City reasonably determines to be necessary for review of the proposed work.
G. City Staff Review
Certificate of Appropriateness applications requiring administrative approval will be reviewed by City staff. C of A applicat ions
requiring staff-level review are defined in Section 9103.17.80(B) of this Chapter. No public hearing shall be required for applications
reviewed by City staff. City staff may approve or approve with conditions the application. City staff shall notify by letter the applicant
within ten (10) days of receiving the C of A application. Decisions of City staff regarding the application are subject to appeal per
Section 9103.17.110 (Appeals) of this Chapter.
H. Commission Review
Certificate of Appropriateness applications requiring approval by the Commission will be reviewed by the Commission at a publ ic
hearing. C of A applications requiring Commission review are defined in Section 9103.17.80(B) of this Chapter. The public hearing
shall be noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. At
the hearing, the Commission shall adopt a resolution approving, conditionally approving, or denying the application. The
Commission shall notify by letter the applicant within ten (10) days of the hearing. Decisions of the Commission regarding th e
application are subject to appeal per Section 9103.17.110 (Appeals) of this Chapter.
I. In evaluating Certificate of Appropriateness applications, City staff, the Commission, and/or the City Council upon appeal shall
consider the architectural style, design, massing, arrangement, texture, materials, color, and any other relevant factors
associated with the affected historic resource. Applications shall not be approved unless:
1. With regard to designated historic landmarks, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural
characteristics or other features of the resource nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural, or aesthetic
interest or value of the resource and its site;
2. With regard to properties within designated historic districts, th e proposed work will neither adversely affect its
relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring properties, nor
adversely affect the historical or architectural character of the district;
3. The proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
any other applicable design guidelines adopted by the City;
4. The proposed work will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a designated historic resource in
accordance with CEQA.
5. For proposed work that may adversely affect the significance of an eligible historic resource or district, the review body
(City staff, the Commission, or the City Council upon appeal) may withhold approval of the project up to but not exceeding
180 days to identify project alternatives or to initiate the designation process.
J. Demolition of Designated Historic Resources
A Certificate of Demolition is required for a designated historic landmarks and a contributing resources in designated historic
districts. Applications for demolition shall be reviewed by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section 9107.07
(Certificates of Demolition), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Approval or denial of a demolition application shall be
deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
K. Relocation of Designated Historic Resources
An application for relocation is required for a designated historic landmarks and a contributing resources in designated historic
districts. Applications for relocation shall be reviewed by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section
9103.17.080(H). Approval or denial of a relocation application shall be deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-12
1. Relocation plans shall include:
a. Plans and specifications showing the current exterior appearance of the building to be moved;
b. A site plan of the proposed receiver site;
c. Photographs (including views of all façades) of the building to be moved and photographs of the proposed receiver
site. Photographs shall be in color and include views of surrounding properties;
d. Any other information the City reasonably determines to be necessary for review of the proposed work.
2. Criteria for relocation. The following criteria may result in approval of an application for relocation of a designated historic
resource:
a. Relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic integrity of the designated historic
resource;
b. Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the designated historic district or
neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the historic resource is located or at the proposed receiver site;
c. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measures for
correcting the condition have been determined feasible, or the relocation is necessary to preserve the historic
resource and all other feasible options for preservation on the original site have failed, as determined by the
Commission.
i. Demolition of Designated Historic Resources
A Certificate of Demolition is required for designated historic landmarks and contributing resources in designated historic districts.
Applications for demolition shall be reviewed by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section 9107.07 (Certificates
of Demolition), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Approval or denial of a demolition application shall be deemed a
discretionary action under CEQA.
ii. Relocation of Designated Historic Resources
An application for relocation is required for designated historic landmarks and contributing resources in designated historic districts.
Applications for relocation shall be reviewed by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section 9103.17.080(H).
Approval or denial of a relocation application shall be deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
3. Relocation plans shall include:
e. Plans and specifications showing the current exterior appearance of the building to be moved;
f. A site plan of the proposed receiver site;
g. Photographs (including views of all façades) of the building to be moved and photographs of the proposed receiver
site. Photographs shall be in color and include views of surrounding properties;
h. Any other information the City reasonably determines to be necessary for review of the proposed work.
4. Criteria for relocation. The following criteria may result in approval of an application for relocation of a designated historic
resource:
a. Relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic integrity of the designated historic
resource;
b. Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the designated historic district or
neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the historic resource is located or at the proposed receiver site;
c. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measures for
correcting the condition have been determined feasible, or the relocation is necessary to preserve the historic
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-13
resource and all other feasible options for preservation on the original site have failed, as determined by the
Commission.
9103.17.090 Certificates of Economic Hardship
A Certificate of Economic Hardship process is established to allow a property owner to carry out work that may adversely affect
the value or significance of a historic resource on the basis of extreme financial hardship or adversity.
A. Income-Producing Properties. In order to establish economic hardship for a non-income-producing property, it must be
demonstrated that, without approval of the proposed demolition or remodel, the property owner would be deprived of all
reasonable use of or return from the property.
B. Non-Income Producing Properties. In order to establish economic hardship for a non-income-producing property, it must
be demonstrated that, without approval of the proposed demolition or remodel, the property owner would be deprived of all
reasonable use of or return from the property.
C. Applications. Certificate of Economic Hardship applications shall be submitted on a form provided by the City and shall
contain all required information. The City may require the owner to furnish additional material evidence supporting the request
for exemption.
D. City Staff Review. Applications for Certificates of Economic Hardship shall be reviewed by City staff following the same
procedure for reviewing Certificates of Appropriateness applications set forth in Section 9103.17.080(H)(I) of this Chapter.
E. Approval. The Commission, and the City Council if appealed, shall approve the Certificate of Economic Hardship only if the
following findings are made:
1. Denial of the application would decrease the value of the subject property so as to deprive the owner of any reasonable
economic return on the property;
2. Denial of the application would cause an immediate hardship because of conditions unique to the specific property
involved;
3. Sale or rental of the property is not financially feasible, when considering the cost of holding such property for uses
permitted in the zone;
4. Rental at a reasonable rate of return is not feasible;
5. Denial of the application would damage the property owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefit conferred to the
community.
9103.17.100 Incentives for Historic Preservation
A. Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program (Mills Act) was enacted in 1972 by the State of California and grants participat ing
local governments authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the repair,
rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of their properties to receive property tax relief. The City shall determine on an annual
basis how many contracts it will accept and may set a financial cap on the program.
1. Qualified Historic Properties. All individually designated historic landmarks, contributing resources in designated
historic districts, and properties that are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California
Register of Historical Resources are eligible for Mills Act contracts, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12, Sections
50280 through 50289, Chapter 1, Part 1, Title 5, of the California Government Code.
2. All Mills Act contracts shall comply with Section 50281 of the California Government Code, which include, but are not
limited to, the following provisions:
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-14
a. The term of the contract shall be for a minimum of ten (10) years.
b. The applicant and property owner shall be required to comply during the term of the contract with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as well as the State Historic Building Code.
c. The City shall be authorized to conduct periodic inspections to determine the applicant’s and owner’s compliance
with the contract.
d. The contract shall be binding upon all successors-in-interest of the owner.
3. Application Requirements. All Mills Act applications shall be filed with the City and include the following:
a. A description and photographs of the property;
b. A copy of the latest grant deed, deed of trust, or title report for the property;
c. A rehabilitation plan/maintenance list of the work to be completed within the ten-year contract period, including cost
estimates and the year in which the work will be completed;
d. A financial analysis form showing current property taxes and estimated taxes for the property under the contract;
e. Required fees per the City’s Fee Resolution.
4. City Review and Commission Recommendation. Mills Act applications shall be submitted to the City by the end of
June 30. Following the application submittal deadline, the Commission will review all applications. Within 30 days from
the beginning of review, the Commission will make recommendations to the City Counc il on the merits of the proposed
applications.
5. City Council Action. City Council may in its sole and absolute discretion authorize the execution of all Mills Act contracts.
Approval of contracts shall be procedural and shall not require a public hearing.
6. Renewal. A Mills Act contract shall be a perpetual, ten-year contract that automatically renews annually unless and until
the property owner/applicant or the City gives written notice to the other that the contract will not be renewed upon the
expiration of its current term.
7. Cancellation. A Mills Act contract may be cancelled or modified if the City Council finds, after written notice to the
applicant and the property owner, either of the following conditions:
a. The owner/applicant is responsible for noncompliance with any terms or conditions of the contract, or any provision
in this Chapter; or misrepresentation or fraud was used in the process of obtaining the contract.
b. The subject property has been destroyed by fire, earthquake, flooding, or other calamit y, or it has been taken by
eminent domain.
8. Cancellation Fee. If a Mills Act contract is cancelled due to noncompliance, the property owner shall be liable to the City
for a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the current fair market value of the prop erty.
9. Work Plan Amendments. The contract may provide that alterations to the approved work plan require review and
approval by City staff.
10. Mills Act Contract. The City Attorney shall prepare and maintain a current Mills Act contract with all required provisions
specified by state law and this section.
B. Other Incentives for Historic Preservation
1. Development Incentives. The following incentives may be applied to a project approved by the Commission, and
subject to approval by the City Council:
a. State Historic Building Code. The California State Historic Building Code (SBHC) provides alternative building
regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, or relocation of historic resources. The SHBC shall be
used in evaluating any building permit for work affecting a historic resource.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-15
b. Parking Modifications
i. The required number of parking spaces shall be the same as the number of spaces that existed on the site
at the time the site was developed, and shall be maintained and not reduced. Adaptive reuse projects shall
otherwise be exempt from the provisions set forth in Section 9103.07 (Off-Street Parking and Loading),
Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
9103.17.110 Appeals
A. The owner of a property subject to review, or the applicant, if diffe rent than the owner, may appeal any decision by City
staff or the Commission under this Chapter pursuant to Section 9108.07 (Appeals), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal
Code. Standard appeal fees shall apply.
B. Any decision regarding a designated historic landmark or historic district or individually eligible historic resource by City
staff shall become final ten (10) business days following the date of the decision unless an appeal to the Commission is
filed.
C. Any decision regarding a designated historic landmark or historic district, or individually eligible historic resource by the
Commission shall become final 30 business days following the date of the decision unless an appeal to the City Council
is filed.
D. Individual historic landmark designation applications and Certificates of Appropriateness for individual historic resources
shall be appealed by property owners only.
B. Certificates of Appropriateness for contributing resources in designated historic districts may be appealed by any property
owner or resident within the boundaries of the district.
9103.17.120 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
The owner of a designated historic landmark or contributor to a designated historic district has a duty to maintain in good r epair all
exterior features and to comply with all applicable codes, laws, and regulations governing the maintenance of the designated
historic resource. It is the intent of this section to preserve from deliberate or inadvertent neglect the exterior features of designated
historic resources.
A. Designated historic resources shall be protected against such decay and be kept free from structural defects through the
prompt repair of any of the following:
1. Deteriorated exterior walls, foundations, or other vertical supports that age, split, or buckle;
2. Deteriorated ceilings, roofs, roof supports, flooring, floor supports, or other horizontal members that age, split, or
buckle;
3. Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge, or settle due to defective material or deterioration;
4. Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose exterior plaster;
5. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior walls, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of
paint, or other protective coating;
6. Any fault or defect in the building that renders it not watertight or otherwise str ucturally unsafe.
B. It shall be the duty of the City Building Official to enforce this section.
9103.17.130 Ordinary Maintenance and Repair
A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectu ral
feature in or on any property covered by this Chapter that does not involve a change in design, material, or external
appearance thereof.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-16
9103.17.140 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
A. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prohibit the construction, alteration, rehabilitation, restoration, demolition, or
relocation of any historic resource, when such action is required for public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition
which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building Code.
B. For declared public hazards that are not an immediate threat to public safety, the Commission may hold a public hearing
in order to comment on the proposed demolition. The public hearing shall be noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13
(Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
9103.17.150 Enforcement Penalties
A. Any person who violates a requirement of this Chapter or fails to obey an order issued by the City Council, Commission,
or City staff, or fails to comply with a condition of approval of any certificate or permit issued under this Chapter, shall be
subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 2 (Penalty Provisions), Article I of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
B. Alteration or demolition of a designated historic resource in violation of this Chapter is expressly declared to be a nuisance
and shall be abated as deemed appropriate by the City.
C. Alteration or demolition of a designated historic resource in violation of this Chapter shall authorize the City to issue a
temporary moratorium on development of the subject property for a period of up to, but not exceeding 24 months from
the date the City becomes aware of the alteration or demolition. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide the City
with sufficient time to study and determine appropriate mitigation measures for the alteration or removal of the historic
resource. Mitigation measures as determined by the City Council shall be imposed as conditions of any subsequent
permit for development of the subject property.
D. In addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity, the City Attorney may maintain an action for injunctive
relief to restrain a violation, or cause, where possible, the complete or partial restoration, reconstruction, or replacement
of any designated historic resource that has been demolished, partially demolished, altered, or partially altered in violation
of this Chapter.
9103.17.160 Definitions
“Arcadia Register of Historic Resources” means the official list of designated historic resources in the city.
“California Environmental Quality Act” (or “CEQA”) refers to the statute and regulations applying to public agencies in
California as codified in the California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 through 21178, and Title 14 CCR, Section 753, and
Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387. CEQA applies to all discretionary work proposed to be conducted or approved by a
California public agency, including private projects requiring discretionary approval.
“Certificate of Appropriateness” shall refer to the required review prior to issuance of an alteration permit to ensure alterations
to designated and individually eligible historic resources are in compliance with this Chapter and CEQA guidelines.
“Certificate of Demolition” shall refer to the required review prior to issuance of a demolition permit to ensure completion of a
full historical evaluation of buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years of age or older to determine historical significance.
See Section 9107.19 (Certificates of Demolition), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
“Character-Defining Features” refer to the visual and physical features that give a building its identity and distinctive character.
They may include the overall building shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and
aspects of its site and environment.
“Commission” means the City of Arcadia Planning Commission established pursuant to the provisions of Part 5, Chapter 2, Article
II of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-17
“Contributing Resource” (or “Contributor”) means any building, structure, object, site, planning feature, sign, area, place,
landscape, or natural feature within a designated historic district that contributes to the dis trict’s historic, cultural, or architectural
significance.
“Designation” means the act of recognizing, labeling, and listing a historic resource in the Arcadia Register of Historic Resources
by the City Council. A designation formally establishes that a historic resource has historic significance.
“Demolition” means any act or process that destroys, in whole or in part, a building, structure, object, or site or permanently
impairs its structural integrity.
“Individually Eligible Historic Resource” means an individual historic resource that has been determined to appear eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Arcadia Register of Hist oric
Resources through a survey or other evaluation process.
“Historic District” means a type of historic resource that is a geographic area comprising a significant concentration, linkage, or
continuity of buildings, structures, objects, planning features, sites, natural/landscape features and any oth er features united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
“Historic Integrity” is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity evidenced by the presence of characteristics that existed
during the time period in which the property attained historic significance. As defined by the National Park Service, and in
accordance with the accepted standards of professional best practices, historic integrity is the conglomeration of seven aspe cts:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
“Historic Landmark” is a type of historic resource that meets the eligibility criteria established in Section 9103.17.060 of this
Chapter, retains sufficient integrity, and has been formally designated by the City.
“Historic Resource” means the broad category of all historic resource types that are significant in the history or prehistory of the
city, region, state, or nation. Historic Resources include resources listed in or found to appear eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Arcadia Register of Historic Resources. Historic
resources can include buildings, structures, objects, sites, and historic districts.
“Historic Resource Evaluation/Assessment” means a detailed study of a property to determine its eligibility for national, state,
or local historic landmark designation. A historic resource evaluation/assessment generally results in a report including in -depth,
property-specific information about the resource. This information typically includes an ownership/occupant history; historic
contexts and themes of significance; construction dates; a physical description of the resource, including its architectural style,
materials, and setting; approximate dates of exterior alterations; character-defining features; and a historic integrity analysis.
“Historic Resources Survey” means a neighborhood or citywide survey to identify eligible historic resources, including buildi ngs,
structures, objects, sites, and historic districts. A historic resources survey generally results in a list of properties that are potentially
eligible for national, state, or local landmark designation.
“Major Additions” (or “Major Enlargements”) refer to residential enlargements larger than 500 square feet or 25 percent of the
existing gross floor area before the addition, and nonresidential enlargements equal to or exceeding 25 percent of the existi ng
gross floor area before the addition. See Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development
Code for more information regarding what constitutes a Residential/Nonresidential Enlargement.
“Major Alterations” (or “Major Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section 9103.17.080(C) of this Chapter.
“Mills Act Historic Property Contract” (or “Mills Act Contract”) shall mean the historic property contract between the City and
the property owner that provides the potential for reduced property taxes in return for the rehabilitation, restoration, and preservation
of a historic resource, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50289, Chapter 1, Part 1, Title 5.
“Minor Alterations” (or “Minor Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section 9103.17.080(D) of this Chapter.
“Negligible Alterations” (or “Negligible Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section 9103.17.080(E) of this Chapter.
CITY OF ARCADIA ZONING CODE – ARTICLE IX: DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
CHAPTER 1: DEVELOPMENT CODE
3-18
“Nomination” means a nomination of a historic resource for placement in the Arcadia Register of Historic Resources pursuant to
this Chapter.
“Non-Contributing Resource” (or “Non-Contributor”) means any building, structure, object, site, sign, area, place, or natural
feature within a historic district that does not meet the criteria for eligibility, does not contribute to the district’s his toric, cultural, or
architectural significance, and therefore is not a historic resource for the purposes of this Chapter.
“Qualified Professional(s)” shall mean any of the following professions/occupations:
Archaeologist shall refer to an archaeologist who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in archaeology, as defined by the National Park Service (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR
Part 61).
Architectural Historian shall refer to an architectural historian who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history, as defined by the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Historian shall refer to a historian who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards in history, as defined by the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Historic Architect shall refer to a licensed architect who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professiona l
Qualifications Standards in historic architecture, as defined by the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Structural Engineer shall refer to any individual registered by the State of California to practice structural engineering
and to use the title Structural Engineer pursuant to the State of California Business and Professions Code, Chapter 7,
Section 6701.
“Rebuild” shall refer to any activity where more than 50 percent of the existing foundation/floor assembly or more than 50 percent
of the exterior walls of a building are removed. See Section 9109.01 (Definitions), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
“Relocation” shall refer to the process of physically transporting a building, structure, or object from one location to another.
“Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (or “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards”)
means the Standards and Guidelines developed by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service for the
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of historic resources. In accordance with California Code of Regulations
Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5, 15126.4(b)(1), and 15221, physical changes to historic resources that conform with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are generally considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant under CEQA and
may be eligible for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption.
Attachment No. 3
Public Comments Since Planning
Commission Meeting
Carol G. Libby
438 West Norman Avenue
Arcadia, California 91007
February 13, 2019
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Arcadia, California
240 W. Huntington Drive,
Arcadia, California
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I believe we, as a community, have come to a crossroads in the subject of
“Historical Preservation.” It is truly a time to move more aggressively on
the controversial subject, or leave it and concentrate on other aspects of City
interests.
In sorting through the files of the Arcadia Historical Society, I found some
very interesting articles written on the subject of preserving “Arcadia’s
treasurers.” In the Arcadia Tribune on September 25, 1979, it was reported
that efforts were made in 1976 to buy a historical home. City Council was
not interested. Prior to the Bicentennial Celebration, efforts were made to
recognize historic dwellings and recognize their value. Another such article,
published in the Arcadia Tribune, in 1987 was entitled, “Is Arcadia losing its
charm?” It stated quite clearly that a trend toward demolition “is appearing
at an alarming rate.” And, then there was Anoakia We all know how that
ended
Arcadia is rich in history. It is too bad that the city’s heritage has been
allowed to slip into the realm of ”unimportance.” What would Athens be
without the Acropolis! Or, Rome without its Coliseum?
I, for one, will continue to speak for preservation, and trust that some day
more Arcadians will listen.
Sincerely,
Carol G. Libby
Emails received after January 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting:
From: Gina Truex
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 6:36 PM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: Historic Preservation
Dear City Council of Arcadia,
I purchased my home in Arcadia 6 years ago because of its, and my neighbors, architecture.
I have been on the Highlands ARB for 3.5 of those years in order to help retain the authentic Southern
California esthetic. This is American architecture at its finest and everyday I awake to a home / house I
love and a neighborhood I love walking.
I agree & support...that Historic Preservation of Arcadia's architecture will benefit everyone. In the
future it will become a location to visit because of it's architectural heritage.
Thank you for this!
Gina Truex
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rigas [
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Cc: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Lisa Flores <lflores@arcadiaca.gov>;
Mom <
Subject: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear City Council,
My name is John Rigas, Esq. My mother (Harula Rigas) and uncle (Ioannis Karatzas) own ("Owners") the
property located at 1110 El Norte Avenue in Arcadia, California ("Property"). This email is drafted with
the intent to not only list the Owners' objections to the ordinance and any initial, informational
designation of the property as a historical resource, landmark, etc., but also to preserve their objections
for any subsequent legal challenge in a court action. The Owners object to the draft ordinance and to
the initial designation of the property as a historic landmark via the conducted survey for the following
reasons:
1. The Owners only received notice of the Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance ("HPO") as of
approximately December 12, 2018 and were neither informed nor aware of it at any time prior
to that date.
2. The survey should not have listed the Property as a historic landmark because it is a poor
representation of Arcadia's 1920s single-family residence boom in both architecture, design, and
current status. The Property possesses no known important architectural elements or design
features. The Property is one of many homes in Arcadia built in the 1920s and is not exceptional
in any way or when compared against any of Arcadia's other 1920s single-family
residences. Moreover, the Property is in disrepair and requires many costly repairs.
3. The survey should not have listed the Property as a historic landmark because the Property is
not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of Arcadia's or California's history.
4. The survey should not have listed the Property as a historic landmark because the Property is
not associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history.
5. The survey should not have listed the Property as a historic landmark because the Property has
not and will never yield information important to the prehistory or history of Arcadia or
California.
6. The survey was conducted improperly. The Property was likely viewed from the street or a
public right-of-way. While the immediate front of the Property may have been relatively left
unchanged for many years, the rest of the Property has undergone a number of changes from its
first construction. These changes are not readily apparent from public view. Consequently, the
Property, on the whole, is a poor representation of Arcadia's 1920s single-family residence
boom. The Owners reserve their right to conduct further discovery as to each and every detail
as to who, what where, when, and why the survey was conducted.
7. Listing the property as a historic landmark would negatively affect the value of the Property and
all properties listed in the survey. The Owners would greatly suffer financially by not being able
to reasonably sell the Property for fair market value to any individual with the hopes of
expanding, demolishing, or developing on the land. The Owners had been expecting the fair
market value of the Property to be that of an undeveloped property in Arcadia, not the fair
market value of a historical landmark in Arcadia. The designation would greatly decrease the
value of the Property, and the Property, in lieu of being a financial retirement asset, would
become a financial burden to the Owners.
8. Designating the Property as a historic landmark would impose a severe financial burden on the
Owners who have retained the property as a retirement vehicle. The Owners would have made
many different financial decisions had they known the Property could have been designated as a
historic landmark. Had the Owners purchased the Property while knowing it was, or could be,
designated as a historic landmark, that would be different.
9. The HPO provides owners no adequate or reasonable financial compensation for the loss in
value as described above.
10. Designating the Property as a historic landmark would force the Owners to conduct costly
repairs, which they may not be able to afford. The Owners wish to maintain autonomy in
deciding if and when these repairs should be made.
11. Designating the Property as a historic landmark would inhibit the Owners from expanding or
developing the Property themselves.
12. The City Council should have no right in superseding a property owner's objection to the
designation of his property as a historic landmark. Such a right is akin to eminent domain and
will be fought vigorously. Only an owner should have the right to elect that his property be
designated as historic.
13. The HPO will decrease Arcadia's taxation base and be a net negative financially.
The Owners reserve the right to make additional objections at any further hearing or legal proceeding
after having had additional time for discovery and evaluation.
--
John A.G. Rigas, Esq.
From: Lily B []
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 10:53 PM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: Historic Preservation
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Lily Berkun and I live in the Arcadia Highlands area. My husband and I think the historic
preservation is needed in our city. We support your efforts on adopting a historic preservation
ordinance.
Thank you,
Lily (& Andrew) Berkun
From: Caroline Blake
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 8:17 AM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Letter to Planning Commissioners for 7 pm Meeting January 8,2019
Dear Arcadia Planning Commissioners:
Today I was made aware by Roger Nemrava that passing the proposed Historical Preservation Ordinance
(HPO) could allow homeowners and
commercial properties to apply up to 50% on their property tax bill when renovating & repairing . As you
know, the home or business must first be designated as historic to qualify.
Nemreva said that Denny’s could have saved a chunk of their $200,000 windmill repair if this ordinance
had been in place & if the city had foreseen the business advantages to HP earlier .
An example of preventable damage to the front of a building is the ATM marring the Millard Sheets
Mid-Century Modern Commercial Architecture ( Citibank -Huntington at First) . The ATM height & heavy
size competes and overwhelms the Fenci sculpture . Now the facade is no longer symmetrical as
originally intended. Architectural Resource Group (ARG) had originally designated this 1960 example of
Millard Sheets work as nationally, state & locally qualified for recognition.
From these mistakes, I encourage City Hall to plan early & respectful contact with owners who are
custodians of historically important buildings. Thus, major disfiguring alterations can be prevented
before they occur on the street side.
Owners and the city can work together harmoniously if rumors do not continue to misinform.. These
two links below from the L.A. Conservancy can help residents to separate fact from fiction. (Supplied by
Roger Nemreva)
www.presentation.lacity.org/files/Top%20Ten%20Mytha.pdf
www.arcadiaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17924
Common False Myths and allegations in Arcadia caused by the Historical Preservation Ordinance
1. Eminent Domain (the city seizing private property under HPO)
2. Property Valuations Drop (fostering unnecessarily of HPO)
3. Low interest Loans to HPO property are prohibited and refinancing is difficult or carries a financial loss
(An unnamed mortgage broker has supposedly confirmed this consequence)
4. Arcadia’s reputation is damaged by HPO and this decline causes schools to suffer & receive less taxes.
I have also seen allegation that teachers lose their jobs and student performance drops due to HPO
Students and their parents allegedly suffer .
5. Architectural Review Group (ARG) has neglected to correctly evaluate a specific home in the greater
detail it deserves. Important points were missed .
6. Some Homeowners claim that their city, state or federal Constitutional rights are undermined by
HPO.
No significant drop in home valuation caused by HPO has been reported in cities such as San Marino, So.
Pasadena, Claremont, Pacific Grove or Monrovia .
It’s time Arcadians begin to embrace and enjoy a new identity based on protecting and respecting our
differing historical districts with differing architectural styles.
Thank you for considering these views.
Respectfully,
Caroline Blake
Village Resident
From: Nancy Hsu [
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 10:33 AM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: Request to remove from list of proposed historical properties - 55 W Longden Ave
To: City Council
My name is Nanshien Hsu and I am the owner of the house on 55 W Longden Ave. I wish to convey that I
do not agree with the addition of my house to the list of historical properties in Arcadia, and I request
that my house be removed from this list.
Sincerely,
Nanshien Hsu
From: JERRY YEO [
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:15 PM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: Against - Historic Landmark Ordinance.
Dear City Council Members.
I have been living in Arcadia since 2010 when my wife and I purchased our home at 905 Singing Wood
Dr, Arcadia, CA 91006. This is a beautiful area.
I am against the Historic Landmark Ordanance.
I believe that everyone should have right to decide what they want with and for their houses. I believe in
individual rights. Only the property owner should decide if they want their house to become a historic
landmark.
The property owner decides.
The property owner will loose a lot of money if their house becomes a historic property. There are
realtors throwing around numbers like 35% to 50%. This is a big chuck of our retirement. However if I
am the one who love history and the preservation of it, I should be OK such a loss.
Nobody else can decide.
If anyone wants to nominate any property for the historic classification, they should just buy over the
property. He is then the new property owner and can decide for himself. Likewise, if the City wants to
reclassify a private property, just by over the property and reclassify.
The city becomes the gate keeper. You can use the application fees to have studies done to help the City
Council decide.
This is a very simple effective and democratic way of doing things and nobody will be short changed.
They will no be any hidden agenda.
"I do not want my property to suddenly become "historical" and loose 50% of its value. BUT, if I do want
it and am willing to loose 50%, I can apply to the city. I would not have forced my will onto anyone else."
We want to keep USA and Arcadia democratic.
Thank you
Jerry Yeo
905 Singing Wood Dr.
From: G. N. Harvey
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:06 PM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: HPO concerns
Dear Concerned Arcadian:
I would like to voice my strong concerns about the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO)
currently under consideration. The HPO is a total sham and just another way for this
governmental agency to exert further control and extract more monies through newfangled fees
and/or taxes. After having read the proposal, which is blatantly slanted in favor of the Council's
wishes and decisions, I don't see any upside whatsoever for the owner(s) of the designated
properties. From what I can gather--after wading through 19 pages of legalese nonsense--the
ONLY entity that would benefit would be the Council. Certainly not the property owners, who will
now have to jump through higher hoops and extend larger monetary outlays in order to satisfy
yet another greedy bureaucratic whim.
It is no coincidence that the reasoning given for this project is questionable and superfluous, as
described in its Purpose section (below in red; highly questionable results are highlighted):
The Arcadia City Council acknowledges that the recognition, preservation, protection, and reuse
of historic resources are required in the interests of the health, prosperity, safety, social and
cultural enrichment, general welfare, and economic well-being of the people of Arcadia. The
designation and preservation of historic resources and districts, and the regulation of alterations,
additions, repairs, removal, demolition, or new construction to perpetuate the historic character
of historic resources and districts, is declared to be a public purpose of the city.
Therefore, the purposes of this Chapter include the following:
A. Enabling informed planning decisions regarding the treatment of properties that contribute to
the city’s character or reflect its historical and architectural development;
B. Establishing priorities for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation efforts within the city;
C. Providing City planners with baseline information about potential historic resources from which
to manage new development;
D. Safeguarding Arcadia’s heritage by protecting resources that reflect elements of the city's
cultural, social, economic, architectural, and archaeological history;
E. Deterring demolition, misuse, or neglect of designated historic landmarks, designated historic
districts (and their contributing resources), and potential historic landmarks or districts, which
represent important links to the past of Arcadia, California, or the nation;
F. Providing the public with a better understanding of and appreciation for the built environment
as a tangible link to Arcadia’s history;
G. Promoting the use of historic resources, especially for the education, appreciation, and
general welfare of the people of Arcadia;
H. Protecting and enhancing the city's attractiveness to residents and visitors, and supporting
economic development.
The implication in the above is that Arcadia is a very desirous location for housing, a major hub
of tourist activity, and possesses such unique and specific architectural and historical elements
that it must be kept intact in character and design. This is a huge fallacy since it is well known
that Arcadia is merely an urban arm of Pasadena (similar to San Marino, San Gabriel, Altadena,
etc.,), which in itself is most notable as a satellite community of Los Angeles. In reality, the
project appears to be a smokescreen wherein Council members aim to justify their positions (and
salaries) by creating new, complicated revisions and mandates.
Already real estate has been negatively affected—just by the very idea of an HPO taking over
owners’ choices! This can easily be verified by looking into falling market prices, reduction in
potential buyers, and trading transfers becoming practically extinct. If the Ordinance passes,
things will only get worse, leaving longtime residents—particularly retired seniors—in a terrible
financial bind.
I don't live in Arcadia; matter of fact, I don't live in California. Nevertheless, I own commercial
real estate in the city, so if this project goes through, I could also be negatively affected. Right
now, my property is not among those on the list, but who's to say how long before someone on
the Council decides it should be? I would like to be a part of whatever group is opposing this
action and go on the record as being against this VERY unnecessary Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Harvey
BYRNE & ASSOCIATES
A professional law corporation
139 E. Olive Avenue
Suite 100
Monrovia, California 91016-3407
Telephone (626) 357-7700
Facsimile (626) 357-7706
E Mail steve@sbyrnelaw.com
February 5, 2019
Sho Tay, Mayor
City of Arcadia
240 W Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
Re: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Ankaa Live Plaza
1020 S. Baldwin Ave.
Arcadia, Ca 91007
Your Honor, Members of the City Council:
This office is counsel to Ankaa Live Plaza, LLC, owner and developer of the real property
located at 1020 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, Ca 91017. In August, 2018, Ankaa, through its
Architects, McClellan Badiyi, submitted plans and applications in connection with the project. The
Development Services Department responded with a lengthy memorandum detailing numerous
suggestions for the development. Despite the memorandum, the City ultimately, declined the
application for issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structure. The refusal was based, at
least in part, on the inclusion of the property on a potential list of properties which “have the
potential” of being designated as having historical significance. As discussed below, that reasoning
is unsupportable in law or fact. Incredibly, the Ordinance upon which the potential list is based has
not been adopted by the City. A brief analysis of the proposed Ordinance is enclosed.
The draft Ordinance includes a provision which specifically states that no property would be
subject to the designation without the consent of the property owner. Such limitation is obviously
necessary in that imposing the limitations attendant to the designation without the owners’ consent
could amount to a full or partial taking of the property and subject the City to damages for inverse
condemnation. As counsel for the Developer, I can assure you that the property owner does not and
will not consent to the designation.
The proposed list of potentially historically significant structures was compiled pursuant to an
Ordinance which has not been adopted or even considered by the City Council. At its meeting on
January 8, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the proposed Ordinance be
rejected. It is uncertain if or when an Ordinance will ever be adopted, or what the final wording of
the Ordinance may be. Further, the Planning commission also recommended that the list of potential
designated properties be rejected. Based on the lack of an enabling Ordinance, the City’s refusal to
issue a demolition permit is, at best, premature.
Hon. Sho Tay, Mayor
City of Arcadia
February 1, 2019
Page 2
The existing structure at 1020 S. Baldwin Ave., is the old Bowling Square facility. With the
pending development of another larger bowling venue in the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center,
it is a certainty that the old bowling alley would never be viable. With the massive walls and limited
access points, the design of the existing structure makes it inappropriate for virtually any other office,
retail or commercial use.
The refusal to issue a demolition permit is perplexing in that the proposed use of the property
is a mixed use commercial / residential complex. This proposed complex would promote
commercial activity in the downtown area while at the same time reducing traffic. This is precisely
the type of use which the City has been promoting.
Ankaa is not necessarily arguing against an ordinance protecting historically important
structures. However, to protect the City from serious liability, the language of such ordinance must
be narrowly drafted to accomplish specifically defined goals while protecting the rights of property
owners. The draft ordinance on the agenda for the February 19, 2019 Council meeting clearly fails to
meet those basic requirements.
Very Truly Yours,
Byrne & Associates, PLC
/s/
By: Steven P. Byrne
cc: Hon Shoo Tay
Hon Peter Amundson
Hon April Verlato
Hon Thomas Beck
Hon Roger Chandler
Dominic Lazzaretto
Jason Kruckeberg
Stephen P. Deitsch
Ankaa Live Plaza
Robert McClellan
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Comments and Analysis
My name is Steven Byrne. I am an attorney and principal of Byrne & Associates, a law firm
which specializes in real estate finance and development.
I live on Cambridge Drive in the College Streets and have been a resident of Arcadia for
nearly 30 years. My children attended Arcadia schools from Kindergarten through Arcadia High
School. My wife, Marlene (now deceased) and I have been active in community activities from
PTSA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Assistance League, and Arcadia Coast Little League, among others.
I am also a member of the Steering Committee for the north barn project at Santa Anita. I am not an
outsider or carpetbagger.
I have experience in dealing with historic preservation ordinances. I am a member of the
Board of Trustees at Southwestern Law School, which occupies the iconic art-deco Bullocks
Wilshire Building. That building is listed on the National Register of Historic places. The school
gladly spends a significant amount of money maintaining the property. Similarly, no reasonable
person could argue that the grandstand at Santa Anita, the Lucky Baldwin house or the Hugo Reid
House are not worth preserving.
The foregoing information is not provided to brag or claim special privileges, Rather, it is
to demonstrate that I have a vested interest in our community and want to see it thrive. My residence
is not included on the HPO list. Aside from being a resident of the City, I have nothing to gain by
opposing the HPO. In fact, I support the concept of a Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO).
1.Legal Standard
To make an Ordinance enforceable, and to protect the City from legal exposure for inverse
condemnation, the enabling statute must be well thought out and properly drafted.
A.Unconstitutionally Vague
The law requires that any law, statute or ordinance be drafted in language sufficiently precise
so that its meaning is clear. Enforcement cannot be left to the uncertainty of interpretation of vague
terms and phrases.
As it relates to individual properties, the proposed Ordinance includes four criteria for
inclusion on the list of potential properties. These criteria are so poorly drafted that they are
unconstitutionally vague. The stated criteria are:
criteria I.It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of Arcadia’s or California’s history;
criteria ii.It is associated with the lives of persons important to local or
California history;
There are 176 individual properties included on the “list”. Criteria I and ii
were not mentioned as the basis for inclusion of any of the properties. This
is consistent with the fact that the survey was limited to a review of
Assessor’s records and a drive by appraisal. In fact, the survey which was the
basis for creating the list did not even include any research to determine
whether these criteria applied to any property.
criteria iii.It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or
possesses high artistic values;
Criteria iii is unconstitutionally vague. Without defining terms as to “type”,
“period”, “region”, and “high artistic values”, this criteria is so broad and
vague as to be meaningless.
criteria iv.It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to
the prehistory or history of the city or state.
Criteria iv is even worse than Criteria iii and is so hopelessly broad as to be
meaningless. Virtually any property can be said to have the “potential” to
yield information. The dictionary definition of the term “prehistory” is the
period of time before written records. Short of a thorough anthropological
study of each individual parcel, every parcel in the city or even the state has
the “potential” to yield information as to “prehistory”.
B.Narrowly Drafted
Especially when the proposed Ordinance affects property rights, the Ordinance must be
narrowly drafted so that it does not affect more than the specific property rights intended. The
proposed Ordinance being considered has a significant effect on the most basic rights of property
ownership. The proposed criteria for determining which properties are to be included within the
“list” of potentially historically significant is so broad that it includes numerous parcels that were
clearly not intended.
C.Inverse Condemnation
The proposed Ordinance includes a requirement of “Owner Consent to Designation”. This
requirement is critical. Without the consent of the property owner, the restrictions of the HPO
amount to a full or partial taking of the property without due process of law. Such action would
subject the City to lawsuits and create exposure for substantial monetary damages.
Despite the clear requirement of owner consent:
I.The City has taken no steps to obtain or inquire from the property owners whether
or not they consent to the designation of their property. In Fact, even when property
owners have clearly stated that they do not consent to inclusion on the “list” their
property is being treated as if it is on the “list”.
ii.The City is enforcing the “list” as if the enabling Ordinance was already in force. For
several months the City has been refusing to issue permits for demolition or
improvements to any property on the “list”.
iii Even if a Court determined that inclusion on the “list” was proper, the property
owner would be entitled to reasonable compensation for the taking. Given the
number of properties involved, this could be a substantial amount, easily running into
the millions of dollars.
iv.At a time of financial crisis, the City cannot afford to pay the cost to defend a
multiplicity of inverse condemnation actions.
2.Factual Deficiencies
The survey conducted by Architectural Resource Group (ARG) is clearly insufficient and
defective. At the Planning Commission meeting in January the ARG representative acknowledged
that the survey consisted solely of a review of Assessor’s records to confirm when the property was
originally constructed and viewing of the subject property from the public right of way, i.e. a “drive
by” appraisal. The survey is clearly an insufficient and inadequate. The list which resulted from the
survey is worthless for purposes of the Ordinance.
A.Review of Assessor’s records shows only when it property was originally
constructed. It does not reflect when or the extent to which the property has been
remodeled or renovated since its construction. It is possible that the current structure
has been remodeled and bears little or no resemblance to the original structure.
B.A drive by appraisal fails to comply with the “Integrity” criteria contained in the
proposed Ordinance. The “Integrity” criteria clearly states that consideration must
be given to the extent to which the property is as originally constructed or,
conversely, has been modified through remodeling. This cannot be determined from
a drive by appraisal.
3.Financial Impact
While there may be indirect cultural or historic benefits to the HPO, there is no financial
benefit to the City in adopting the Ordinance. In fact, the City would almost certainly incur
substantial costs in administering the program.
As discussed above, without the consent of the property owner, inclusion of property on the
“list” could expose the City to claims of inverse condemnation, including the costs of defending legal
actions and the cost of paying compensation to owners whose property rights have been affected.
In addition to the legal costs, administration of the HPO would entail significant costs to the
city for administration of the program. No source of funds has been identified which would defray
what could be significant costs.
At a time of financial crisis, the City cannot afford the costs of administering the HPO
program, and definitely cannot afford the costs to defend a multiplicity of actions and pay the owner
compensation.
4.No need for the HPO
Virtually any property which is on the “list” is more than likely also eligible for inclusion of
the State or Federal Register of Historic Places. There is no need for another layer of bureaucracy,
adding costs and further regulation.
The proposed ordinance before the Council patterns itself after existing laws for the State and
Federal registers of Historic Places. Significantly, however, the proposed Ordinance completely
reverses the procedure applied for both the State and Federal designation. In both the State and
Federal registers, the specific property must be nominated and then evaluated according to well
established criteria. Only after nomination and evaluation is a property given the designation of
included on the register of Historic Places.
5.Improper Enforcement
Despite the fact that the proposed HPO has not yet been adopted by the City Council, the
Development Services Department is already enforcing the “list” as if the HPO has been adopted.
Despite the clear language of the proposed HPO, the proposed Ordinance refers to a list which was
created in advance according to criteria which have not been approved. Further, as it is being
enforced, the Ordinance effectively provides that any property on the list will automatically be
included.
Both the State and Federal registers place the burden of proving eligibility on the party
seeking historic designation. In contrast to this, as it is being applied, the HPO places an obligation
on the property owner of dis-proving eligibility. This may seem like a small difference, but it
significant. It exposes the City to greater risk of being held liable in an inverse condemnation
action.
Also, in contrast to the Federal and State requirements, the proposed HPO criteria include
an additional ground which is unacceptably vague That additional criteria says that the property
could by eligible if it:
“has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the pre-history
or history of the city or state.”
This standard is so vague that would be almost impossible to refute. It was rejected at both
the State and Federal levels.
The proposed list of “potential” historic properties includes 176 separate properties in the
City of Arcadia alone. This is almost as many as in the entire County of Los Angeles. The list is
definitely overkill.
Even if the criteria are acceptable, it is obvious that the criteria were not appropriately applied
in creating the list. For example, the property at 1020 S. Baldwin Ave., is listed as potentially
historic because it is:
“exemplary of auto-centric commercial development during the post-war period.”
That statement is so vague that it could apply to virtually any property. It would easily
include a strip mall with a 7/11 or liquor store as long as the property was originally built over 45
years ago.
Conclusion:
The concept of private ownership of property is essential to our country. While people are
expected to be good neighbors and take care of their property, the idea of limiting what a person can
do with their property is antithetic to our basic values. With this in mind, we must look at any
proposed land use regulation with a goal to making sure that is as narrowly drafted as possible
The proposed Ordinance is too broad and too vague. It needs to be redrafted so that it
minimizes the adverse effects on property owners and places the burden of regulation on the City,
not on the property owner.
I support the concept of a Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). However, we are dealing
with a statute which would have substantial effect on property ownership. The language of the
enabling ordinance MUST be clear and narrowly drafted to accomplish its purpose.
The proposed Ordinance is both vague and over broad. It should be rejected and sent back
to the Development Services Department to be completely rewritten.
The “list” of potential historic properties is similarly over broad and defective. There is no
enabling authority for the “list”. The Development Services Department must be instructed to stop
enforcing the “list” as if it was supported by an enabling Ordinance.
February 10, 2019
Arcadia City Council
Mayor Tay and Councilpersons Beck, Verlato, Chandler, and Amundson
Dear Arcadia Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write to urge you to strengthen historic preservation statutes in your city, and
specifically to protect the landmark Home Savings and Loan building in Arcadia,
designed and decorated by Millard Sheets and his studio of artists and architects in
1960. This building’s shape, its mosaics, sculptures, stained-glass windows, and
painted murals are iconic symbols of Home Savings, long the largest savings-and-
loan in the country, and they have been featured in magazines and even in feature
films, such as the movie Ray. This building is essential to the identity and heritage of
Arcadia, and it should be preserved before any more of its historic elements are
destroyed or altered.
I am the preeminent expert on the public art and architecture of the Millard Sheets
Studio and the author of Banking on Beauty: Millard Sheets and Midcentury Commercial
Architecture in California (University of Texas Press, 2018), which as won the
PROSEAward for the best book on Architecture and Urban Planning and has been
recognized at the Modernism in America Awards. The book was also recognized by
the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Magazine as one of the most important books
on the history of the county last year.
A California native, I earned an A.B. at Harvard in 2001 and a Ph.D. at Yale in 2008,
and I am currently the director of the Urban Studies program and an associate
professor of history at Manhattan College. I am the author of another award-
winning book, co-editor of two other books, and the author of numerous academic
and popular articles about history, the built environment, and urban studies.
The Arcadia branch is discussed at length in my book, as I describe the design and
fabrication process for the large mosaic on front, including a Susan Lautmann Hertel
full-color cartoon; the pair of sculptures, and their ties to the original Home Savings
in Beverly Hills and the LA Masonic Temple (now Marciano Museum) in Los
Angeles; the angular trees and striking colors of the mural, which I last saw in the JP
Morgan Chase break room; and the artist depicted in the stained-glass windows
over the back doors, created by Hertel and local artists in Sierra Madre. This
classicized art is quintessential Midcentury Modern, and it is no wonder it has been
used as a film location, to evoke some of the greatest moments in Southern
California art and design history.
HISTORY
For my research, I conducted more than 75 interviews with architects and artists
who worked on these buildings, Home Savings employees, and preservationists,
and I am the first person to comprehensively study the Millard Sheets Papers, Denis
O’Connor Papers, and Ahmanson Foundation images related to these commissions.
I received fellowships from the Ahmanson Foundation, the Haynes Foundation,
Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, the Huntington Library, the Jonathan Heritage
Foundation, and the Autry National Center, and I have written about my research
for Huntington Library Frontiers, the KCET website, and my own research blog,
http://adamarenson.com/homesavingsbankart, which has received more than
50,000 visitors.
I have led a tour of Home Savings branches for the Autry’s Pacific Standard Time
Getty Foundation programming, and I coordinated with the L.A. Conservancy to do
a panel on Sheets’s works in the Pomona Valley. I have been interviewed by the
Daily News Los Angeles, the Dallas Morning News, Beverly Hills Television, and in a
documentary by Paul Bockhorst on Sheets’s architecture. I have also been
interviewed by KCRW and now featured in the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles
Magazine.
Arcadia’s branch opened in June 1960, on the same day as iconic branches in Buena
Park (on the cover of my book), Garden Grove, and Lakewood, marking the
ascendance of the Home Savings Style as it stretched throughout Los Angeles and
Orange counties. It is older than the Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Montebello
branches that have been preserved and awarded for their historic excellence.
I urge you to confer landmark status on this building, and look to preserve the
heritage of Arcadia in this and other iconic buildings. The Arcadia branch is one of
the greatest Millard Sheets Studio commissions for Home Savings, integrating
architecture, mosaic, stained glass, sculptures, and interior design elements into an
indivisible whole.
I look forward to hearing from you about your decision, and please feel free to
contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Adam Arenson
Associate Professor of History and Director of Urban Studies,
Manhattan College
Miguel Hall 414
4513 Manhattan College Parkway
Riverdale (Bronx), NY 10471
718-862-7317
adam.arenson@manhattan.edu
Arcadia Business Center
735 W. Duarte Rd.
Arcadia, CA 91007
January 14, 2019
Attn: 735 W. Duarte Rd.’s Historical Status Nomination
Dear Arcadia City Planning Commissioner and Councils,
I am writing to you in regard to my office building that is being considered for historic status
under the Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance as proposed by the city. I would like for our
building 735 W. Duarte Rd. to be removed from the ordinance. I do not believe that our office
building fits with the designation criteria as outlined in the Ordinance. Our office building does
not contain elements I believe that contributes to the city of Arcadia’s or California’s history,
associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history, possess distinctive
architectural characteristics, or yields important information to the prehistory or history of the
city or state. I believe our building is only considered because of its age, 55 years old (building
built in 1964). However, the building does not contain any distinctive architectural style or
historical significance. Due to the building’s age, should our building be nominated as a historic
landmark, it will prevent me from being able to make any necessary repairs or changes that
may be necessary in the future.
My suggestion to the Arcadia City Planning Commissioner and Councils is to not rush this
Ordinance to be passed in such a short time. It seems that property owners are upset as seen
from their reaction during the hearing on January 8th, 2019, in which I attended; other owners
seem to share the same feelings as I do about the rushed selection process. The city
commissioner and councils need to spend more time to review buildings being nominated. The
City also needs to formally send out letters to all Arcadia’s property owners, and not just the
176 that were chosen for nomination (and not just through a website update). There may be
more other property owners who are willing to submit their building for nomination. We also
need an acceptable timeframe to may evaluate and consider if the building meets the historical
building criteria ourselves as well. I believe this building selection process was rushed and a
thorough and more timely selection process is needed.
Sincerely,
Agnes Yeh
Arcadia Business Center, LLC.
On Feb 6, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Thomas Li <> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I’m writing on behalf of the property owner, Dena Homes, LLC, to request that the property at
27-29 W. Camino Real Avenue, be removed from the “Individually Eligible Resources” list, and
the Status Code to be changed from “5S3” to “6Z.” The subject property was evaluated by
Jeanette A. McKenna, see report attached. The 49-page report provides a full explanation as to
why the designation code of the subject property should be changed from “5S3” to “6Z”. This
report was submitted with the attached Certificate of Demolition application, which was
approved by planning staff. Please advise on the status of the removal from the “Individually
Eligible Resources” list, and the Status Code change. Thank you and please let me know if you
have any questions or comments.
Tom
Tom Li
Prestige Design, Planning, and Development, Inc.
626-538-7373
P.O. Box 660866
Arcadia, CA 91066
prestige.dpd.inc@gmail.com
Attachment No. 4
Revised Fees and Potential Incentives
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
CURRENT
FEE
COST OF
SERVICE
PROPOSED
FEE
FEE
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL
REVENUE
CHANGE
DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
Certificate of Appropriateness
(Major)
Certificate of Appropriateness
(Minor)
Designation of a Historic District
Designation of a Local
Landmark
Mills Act
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,630.66
$907.55
$2,547.62
$1,846.92
$1,571.86
$1,600
$900
$2,500
$1,800
$1,500
$1,600
$900
$2,500
$1,800
$1,500
$6,400.00
$9,075.45
$5,095.24
$3,693.84
$3,143.72
These are new fees as a result of
the new process from the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The
time to process the permit.
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESSES
It is important to the City Council that there be some incentive for participation in various Historic
Preservation processes. The following incentives may be applied to a project approved by the
Commission, and subject to approval by the Council.
1. Mills Act Tax Abatement Program Participation in the Mills Act Program is part of the Draft
Ordinance so no action would be needed if the Ordinance were adopted. For designated
properties, Mills Act participation provides an opportunity for significant tax relief. The City is
impacts can be carefully studied.
2. State Historic Building Code. The California State Historic Building Code (SBHC) provides
alternative building regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, or relocation of
historic resources. The SHBC shall be used in evaluating any building permit for work affecting a
historic resource. This can result in relaxation or modification of some standards and could assist
an owner in working on their home or property. This is built into the process and requires no
further action.
3. Parking Modifications. The required number of parking spaces shall be the same as the number
of spaces that existed on the site at the time the site was developed, and shall be maintained and
not reduced. Adaptive reuse projects shall otherwise be exempt from the provisions set forth in
Section 9103.07 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
This can provide a major assist by not requiring certain parking spaces to be built or replaced. This
is built into the Draft Ordinance and would provide no further action if the Ordinance were
adopted.
4. Fee Waivers for Processes. Along with the Historic Preservation Ordinance comes a set of costs
for the review of various processes. This includes fees for the Designation of a Historic Landmark
($1,800), Designation of a Historic District ($2,500), and Mills Act participation ($1,500). An
incentive that could be offered is that no fees are charged for these application processes. This
would require an action by the City Council.
5. Reductions in Building Permit fees for Designated Properties . For those properties that do
become designated, a potential incentive is that building permit fees could be reduced by 50% for
those projects that propose work to enhance or preserve the historic nature of the building. This
reduction would only apply to projects that were deemed consistent with the designated
property. This would require an action by the City Council.
6. Public/Private Assistance. The City will explore if there are funding sources that could be used to
generally support and protect historic preservation efforts with interested property owners. This
could involve everything from technical assistance with historic studies and nomination processes
to grants for construction and upkeep, to acquisition of properties. The City will develop a
database of potential private or non-profit fundraising groups, public grants or loans, and
organizations who may be interested in assisting with these options. For example, the Arcadia
Historical Society has reached out to offer assistance (technical and potentially financial) with
these types of efforts, and will be an excellent partner in developing such a program.
Attachment No. 5
Minutes from the January 8, 2019 Planning
Commission Meeting
Attachment No. 6
Planning Commission Packet,
January 8, 2019
DATE: January 8, 2019
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE
IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING A CITYWIDE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, INCLUDING AN EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”)
Recommendation: Forward a Recommendation of approval to the City
Council
SUMMARY
The Development Services Department has prepared Text Amendment No. TA 18-02
amending various sections of the Arcadia Development Code to adopt a Citywide Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance includes a list of 176 resources that
have been identified as being individually eligible for listing as a historic resource at the
federal, state, and/or local level.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission convey the Commission’s comments
to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Historic
Preservation Ordinance with the associated text amendments and the list of potential ly
eligible individual resources, and recommend the adoption of an exemption from the
California Environmental Quality Act Section 15308, Class 8, and as a project subject to
CEQA’s “general rule” of no impact.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the City Council voted to develop a Historic Resources Survey to find out what
historic resources exist in the City, both in residential and in commercial areas. Without
going through an official survey, buildings can be demolished and removed without a real
understanding of the historic context and potential historic value of these buildings. The
City wanted to know what buildings exist that may be historically significant and potentially
worth preserving. That same year, the City retained Architectural Resource Group, Inc.
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 2
(ARG) to prepare the City's first comprehensive Citywide Historic Context Statement
(refer to Attachment No. 4) and conduct an intensive-level survey of all the properties
within the city limits. Approximately 16,800 parcels were surveyed from the public right-
of-way, with the exception of those properties that were built after 1970. The time
threshold of 50 years of old (or at least 45 years of age at the time of Survey) was used
because it is a benchmark set by the National Park Service for properties under
consideration for the National Register of Historic Places.
Based on the evaluation, a total of 189 potential historic resources, including 165 potential
individual buildings, 11 potential historic districts (which included 1,957 buildings), and 12
non-building resources (structures, objects and sites) were documented through the
survey. After the survey was completed, the City Council voted to draft a Historic
Preservation Ordinance that established a method of protecting the resources and
potential historic districts identified in the Survey.
Following the completion of the Historic Resources Survey in July of 2016, the survey
results were shared with the community during several community meetings. The
following timeline depicts the various milestones within the project over the course of the
last two years:
October 13 and December 1, 2016 – Two Community Meetings were held to inform
the community about the Citywide Historic Preservation Survey, the process, and
the resources that were identified, and the effects of owning a surveyed property.
February 1, 2017 – City Council Study Session to consider the comments to date
and the Survey results, and to determine the next step in the process. At that time,
City staff and ARG were directed to prepare a draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance in order to establish criteria and procedures for designation,
preservation, and maintenance of the City’s historic resources.
September 5, 2017 – City Council Study Session to discuss various levels of
criteria (including local) and issues related to the draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
October 6, 2017 – City released the first draft of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance
November 2 and November 13, 2017 – Community Meetings held to present the
draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and to focus on the regulations and process
for properties that are located within a potential historic district and the process for
individually eligible resources.
March 2018 – An informational Fact Sheet was developed to respond to the many
questions that were raised after the Draft Ordinance was released – refer to
Attachment No. 5 postcard was sent to every property owner informing them of the
Fact Sheet.
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 3
October 3, 2018 – City Council Study Session to discuss proposed changes to the
draft Ordinance.
October 10, 2018 - The draft Ordinance was revised to reflect those changes
agreed to by the City Council and re-posted on the City’s Historic Preservation
webpage. The major changes to the draft Ordinance were:
- To not include the potential historic districts in the draft Ordinance. A
neighborhood could still form a District, but the original 11 eligible Districts
have been removed (and all the associated properties).
- The Ordinance would only protect resources that have been identified as
individually eligible at the federal, state, and/or local level (176 resources
TOTAL).
- The City Council would now need a Supermajority (4-1) vote to overturn an
owner’s lack of consent to nominate an individual property.
November 19, 2018 – A letter was sent to all 176 owners informing them their
property is on the survey list as a “potential” historic resource, which means it was
found to be either “potentially eligible” for listing on the National Register, California
Register, and/or at the local level. The owners were also informed that although
the list provides recommendations regarding eligibility of a property, no actual
designation will result directly from this process; and a full historical evaluation is
still required to confirm its significance.
November 26, 2018 – A notice (on a postcard) was sent to every property owner
informing them of the upcoming public hearing dates.
The Arcadia Board of Realtors were informed every step of the wa y to ensure they
informed the local real estate agents and prospective buyers that no actual designation
results directly from the survey. If a property owner wanted to demolish their house, they
would still go through the existing Certificate of Demolition process, which requires a full
evaluation and environmental review of any property that is 50 years of age or older. This
process has been in place since 2011.
ANALYSIS
The City’s first historic preservation ordinance would recognize , preserve, and protect
historic resources in the city, and safeguard Arcadia’s heritage by protecting resources
that reflect elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, architectural, and
archaeological history. The proposed Ordinance would also consist of a list of 176
resources that were identified as individually eligible for listing at the fede ral, state, and/or
local level – refer to Attachment No. 2. The Historic Resources Survey list is an
informational tool for the City to understand where the potential his toric resources are
located in the City. The list includes a brief description of each property or resource
deemed to be eligible, as well as a recommendation on what historic “status” the property
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 4
may be eligible for. There are three levels of historic status: A property can become a
resource at the National level, State level, and the local level. Various criteria are already
in place to evaluate resources against both the National and State criteria, but, because
Arcadia does not yet have a Historic Preservation Ordinance, there is not yet any
established local criteria. Being on the list does not result in automatic designation.
Because the inventory is a list of survey findings (not a list of designated properties), there
is currently no mechanism for opting off or on the list, unless an architectural historian or
historian could provide a detailed evaluation that the building or structure is not a
significant historic resource.
The 176 potential resources on the eligibility list consist of:
164 Individual Buildings
126 Residential Buildings
17 Commercial Buildings
21 Public/Private Institutional Buildings
12 Non-Building Resources
The proposed ordinance includes the following, as described in further detail below:
1. Establishes the Historic Preservation Commission
2. Establishes procedures for Designations of a historic resource as a historic
landmark
3. Establishes a process for Alterations to Historic Resources (Major, Minor, and
Negligible Alterations)
4. Establishes Incentives for Historic Preservation such as the Mills Act Tax
Abatement Program
Currently, a full historical evaluation is required for any historic resource that is of a t least
50 years of age before a building can be demolished to accommodate a new
development. The qualified Historian or Architectural Historian will be required to evaluate
the building or structure against the City’s proposed historic criteria and against the CEQA
guidelines, which is what is currently being done to comply with State law.
1. Historic Preservation Commission
The Planning Commission would act as the Historic Preservation Commission for
providing the City Council with recommendations regarding the designation of historic
resources, adoption of preservation policies, and approval of the Mills Act applications.
As an existing Commission with land use experience and knowledge, the Planning
Commission is equipped for this role. It was determined that based on the expected
volume of projects that would be in front of a Historic Preservation Commission, that a
new body was not necessary. The ordinance does not require that any of the members
come from a specific discipline related to historic preservation, but training will be
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 5
provided and this issue would be considered over time as Planning Commissione rs are
appointed to serve.
2. Designation Procedures for a Historic Landmark or Historic District
Under the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, any person or group, including the City,
has the ability to nominate a property or properties for historic landmark or historic district.
However, with the exception of very rare circumstances, a property cannot be designated
without the consent of the owner.
The draft Ordinance does authorize the Historic Preservation Commission or the City
Council to call up the request for review. The City Council shall have the power to revoke
an owner’s objection to historic landmark or district designation, by a supermajority vote
of 4-1, if it determines that the designation constitutes a social benefit to Arcadia’s citizens
that outweighs the private burden of designation, and designation does not damage the
property owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefits designation provides to the
community. This provision was included in the draft Ordinance to p rotect the City’s most
exceptional historic resources, and is not intended to be a common occurrence.
To establish a historic district, the designation process is slightly different from a local
landmark. In order for a historic district to be designated, the draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance proposes that at least 60% of the properties within the proposed district must
contribute to the historical significance of the district. Assuming at least 60% of the
properties within a potential district are contributors to that district, the next required step
would be to obtain written consent of 75% of the property owners within the district. If a
proposed district meets these two threshold s, it would then be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission and then by the City Council for official adoption. So, although
the Ordinance does not specifically identify certain districts, a district could be created
anywhere in the City where these thresholds can be met.
Many of the surrounding cities only require a simple majority (i.e. 50% +1) of owners
within the district to consent to historic district designation. The City Council felt that it
should be a higher percentage, and felt a 75% owner approval was more appro priate for
Arcadia. This is a high threshold to meet.
3. Alteration to Historic Resources
The proposed Ordinance establishes a two -tiered process for reviewing alterations to a
potential historic resource, a designated resource, or contributor to a designat ed historic
district. Minor projects are subject to administrative review by staff or by one of the five
designated Homeowners Associations, and major projects are subject to a Commission-
level review. Any addition of square footage that is visible from the public right-of-way is
considered a major alteration under the draft Ordinance. Under the draft Ordinance,
properties that were determined potentially individually eligible through the Survey would
need to undergo a more in-depth evaluation by a qualified historian or architectural
historian before any major alterations could be undertaken. If the property is formally
determined eligible through a more detailed evaluation, the proposed alteration to the
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 6
property would have to be evaluated by a qualified historian or architectural historian to
ensure the proposed change does not alter the historical significance of the building. If
the property owner still chooses to carry out an alteration that has been determined to
impact the historic significance of the building, the City may withhold approval of the
project up to the 180 days to identify project alternatives. All alterations would be
processed under a new application created for this process, called a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Some examples of the different types of alterations are:
Major Alteration (Historic Preservation Commission Review): Any demolition,
rebuild, or relocation of an individual historic resource or a contributing resource in
a designated historic district. Any additions visible from the public right-of-way.
Minor Alteration (City Staff Review): Alternations or removal of insignificant
exterior features such as additions (not visible from public right-of-way), window
and doors change-outs, and minor façade work.
4. Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program allows qualifying property owners to
receive a potential tax reduction in exchange for the rehabilitation, restoration, and
maintenance of their historic property. Although this is a statewide program, it is
administered by local governments. If the City chooses to adopt a Mills Act program, Mills
Act contracts may be available to owners of designated historic landmarks and
contributing properties in designated historic districts. A Mills Act contract typically results
in a reduction in property taxes of between 30-70%. The term of the contract is 10 years.
If the City Council chooses to participate, the City Council will determine on an annual
basis how many Mills Act contracts it will accept and may set a financial cap on the
program. Each City administers its Mills Act Program differently. It is likely that the City
would start its Mills Act participation as a “pilot” program, accepting a small number of
properties into the program for the first several ye ars. This would be done to monitor the
time and staffing demands, interest in the program, and financial impact of administering
the program.
The Mills Act Program can result in less property taxes being paid. However, since the
City receives approximately 9% of every property tax dollar, the impact of the Mills Act on
City Revenue is not a dollar for dollar comparison. All relevant taxing entities would take
less on a tax bill for a property in the program. That being said, as mentioned in the
previous response, the City would likely start participation in the Mills Act Program as a
pilot project, and would monitor the financial impact carefully for the first several years, to
determine the cost of participation. It is not anticipated that participation wou ld lead to a
substantial impact on City revenue.
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 7
Proposed Text Amendments to the Development Code
Various sections of the Development Code were revised to reflect the draft Historic
Preservation Ordinance – refer to Attachment No. 3 – and to incorporate certain
processes into the current rules. These revisions include the Historic Preservation
Commission and City Council’s ability to Call for Review a historic resource that was
nominated as a historical landmark or historic district, without the consent of the owner.
Additionally, revisions have been included to reflect the qualifying age to demolish a
structure. Currently, if the building or structure is 50 years or older, it has to be evaluated
for historical purposes and against the CEQA guidelines. The last text amendment is to
include the permit processing procedures for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Major or
Minor Alterations) into the Development Code. For the full text of the revisions, please
refer to Attachment 1.
FINDINGS
Pursuant to Development Code Section 9108.03.060 Text Amendments may be
approved if all the following findings can be satisfied.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan(s).
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
and the associated text amendments are consistent with the General Plan in
preserving the physical aspects of Arcadia that are highly valued by the residents
and business community. The proposed Ordinance would also safeguard
Arcadia’s heritage by protecting resources that reflect elements of the city’s
cultural, social, economic, architectural, and archaeological history. Furthermore,
the Ordinance would protect the character of the neighborhoods through the
preservation of their character-defining features. Therefore, the propose
amendments will be consistent with the General Plan and no specific plans will be
affected by the proposed amendments.
2. For Development Code amendments only, the proposed amendment is
internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development
Code.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
and text amendments will not be in conflict with the Development Code and will be
consistent with other applicable provisions as it relates to establishing priorities for
preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation efforts within the city. The survey list
will be used by the City for future planning an d decision-making and to inform
property owners about the potential historical significance of their properties.
Therefore, the proposed text amendments will be consistent with other applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance is covered by the ‘General Rule
Exemption’ of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects that can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action in question may have a
significant effect on the environment per CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). The project is also
exempt under Section 15308, Class 8, as no construction activities or other direct physical
changes could result from the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance – refer to
Attachment No. 8. The Historic Preservation Ordinance would not result in the relaxation
of standards and would not allow for environmental degradation. Conversely, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance would establish protections and procedures for the preservation
of cultural resources.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
There have been numerous public meetings on this topic, and notices have been send
throughout the process and through the various drafts of the Ordinance. Most recently, a
letter was sent to the 176 affected owners on November 19, 2018, and the public hearing
notice was sent to every property owner in the City on November 26, 2018 and published
in the Arcadia Weekly on December 13, 2018.
Through the process of developing the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, a number
of property owners have questioned how to remove their properties from the list and they
have submitted either a letter or email in opposition to the proposed Ordinance – refer to
Attachment No. 6. The primary concern on the part of most of these owners is that by
being listed, their use of their property may one day be compromised and/or the overall
value of their property may by compromised by the listing. Even if the list is ultimately
approved, the listing itself does not make the property a historic resource. It just means it
is eligible and will need to be studied further to determine the process for the property to
be demolished or added on to. Rather than waiting for a final decision from the City
Council on the draft Ordinance, a number of property owners have hired an architectural
historian to evaluate their properties now, in advance of the Ordinance being completed.
The hope from these owners is that by providing a report that states their build ing is not
historic, the City will remove their property from the list. While this certainly is the correct
process for evaluating one’s property to determine its historical signfiicance, there is a
timing and process problem with these studies that is important to understand.
Because the City Council has not yet acted on the d raft Ordinance, there is no criteria
approved for Arcadia. Similarly, the list of properties that has been developed is just a
draft list. Until these items are acted upon by the Council, it is not known whether the
Ordinance will be approved, and, if it is, what the local criteria will be. The studies that are
being developed now are evaluating existing structures against the State and Federal
criteria because those are the only criteria relevant at the moment. These structures are
NOT being evaluated against local criteria because we don’t yet have local criteria. As
such, while the studies being developed include good information that may show that the
property does not reach the Federal or State level, these studies don’t remove these
structures from the draft list. This is because these structures may still have local
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 9
significance. If the Ordinance is approved in some form by the City Council, and the
Council does adopt local criteria, these resources will need to be evaluated against that
local criteria. For existing studies, this could be accomplished through a supplemental
addendum to the existing report.
We did receive information from the property owner at 841 Singingwood Driv e that the
house does not mee the qualifying age to be evaluated. The house was actually built in
1978, and was 38 years old at the time the citywide survey was conducted. As a result, if
the Council chooses to the adopt the list or use it other ways, this property will be removed
from the list.
FISCAL IMPACT
In order to ensure cost recovery, a fee Resolution will be presented to the City Council
along with the rest of the historic preservation materials that will include the proposed
fees for all the new applications and processes – refer to Attachment No. 7. It is not
anticipated that the adoption of the Ordinance itself will have a significant fiscal impact.
There are several incentives that are under consideration by the Council that may have
a fiscal impact. First, if the City participates in the Mills Act program, there will be a fiscal
impact that will be reported and provided to the City Council at the time of implementation.
It is recommended that Mills Act participation be considered as a pilot project and the
financial implications of participation be considered and monitored after each project. In
addition, other incentives that are under consideration are a fee waiver for applications to
designate landmarks or historic districts, and for participation in the Mills Act. While this
is not anticipated to be a large number of projects or a large fiscal impact, it will be
important to each individual applicant. Finally, another proposed incentive is to offer a
50% reduction in building permit fees for construction projects on designated properties
that enhance or preserve the character of the designated property. These incentives are
further described in Attachment No. 7.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission convey the Commission’s comments
to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Historic
Preservation Ordinance with the associated text amendments and the list of potential
individual resources, and recommend an exemption from the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15308 as well as the general rule of no impact.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the January 8, 2019, hearing, please contact Lisa Flores,
Planning & Community Development Administrator at (626) 574-5445, or by email at
lflores@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
January 8, 2019
Page 10
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachment No. 2: List of Properties
Attachment No. 3: Associated Text Amendment to the Development Code
Attachment No. 4: Historic Context Statement
Attachment No. 5: Historic Preservation Fact Sheet
Attachment No. 6: Comments Received from the Property Owners
Attachment No. 7: Proposed Fees and Potential Incentives
Attachment No. 8: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance and
Text Amendments
1
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
CHAPTER XX.XX ARCADIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
DRAFT October 10, 2018
**City Council changes from the October 3, 2018 Study Session are shown in “red”
with double underlines.**
Section
XX.XX.010 Title
XX.XX.020 Purpose
XX.XX.030 Applicability
XX.XX.040 Historic Preservation Commission
XX.XX.050 Historic Resources Survey
XX.XX.060 Local Eligibility and Designation Criteria
XX.XX.070 Designation Procedures
XX.XX.080 Alterations to Historic Resources
XX.XX.090 Certificates of Economic Hardship
XX.XX.100 Incentives for Historic Preservation
XX.XX.110 Appeals
XX.XX.120 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
XX.XX.130 Ordinary Maintenance and Repair
XX.XX.140 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
XX.XX.150 Enforcement Penalties
2
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
XX.XX.160 Definitions
3
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
XX.XX.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as the Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance.
XX.XX.020 Purpose
The Arcadia City Council acknowledges that the recognition, preservation, protection, and
reuse of historic resources are required in the interests of the health, prosperity, safety, social
and cultural enrichment, general welfare, and economic well-being of the people of Arcadia.
The designation and preservation of historic resources and districts, and the regulation of
alterations, additions, repairs, removal, demolition, or new construction to perpetuate the
historic character of historic resources and districts, is declared to be a public purpose of the
city.
Therefore, the purposes of this Chapter include the following:
A. Enabling informed planning decisions regarding the treatment of properties that
contribute to the city’s character or reflect its historical and architectural
development;
B. Establishing priorities for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation efforts within
the city;
C. Providing City planners with baseline information about potential historic resources
from which to manage new development;
D. Safeguarding Arcadia’s heritage by protecting resources that reflect elements of the
city's cultural, social, economic, architectural, and archaeological history;
E. Deterring demolition, misuse, or neglect of designated historic landmarks, designated
historic districts (and their contributing resources), and potential historic landmarks
or districts, which represent important links to the past of Arcadia, California, or the
nation;
F. Providing the public with a better understanding of and appreciation for the built
environment as a tangible link to Arcadia’s history;
G. Promoting the use of historic resources, especially for the education, appreciation,
and general welfare of the people of Arcadia;
H. Protecting and enhancing the city's attractiveness to residents and visitors, and
supporting economic development.
XX.XX.030 Applicability
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all historic resources, including buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and historic districts within the city.
4
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
XX.XX.040 Historic Preservation Commission
The Arcadia Planning Commission is responsible for providing City Council with
recommendations regarding the designation of historic resources, adoption of preservation
policies, and approval of Mills Act applications. The Planning Commission, herein referred to
as the Commission, is also responsible for reviewing and approving Certificates of
Appropriateness in accordance with Section XX.XX.080(B) of this Chapter. The Commission
shall have and exercise the powers, perform the duties, and maintain the qualifications
pursuant to Part 5 (Planning Commission), Chapter 2, Article II of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
XX.XX.050 Historic Resources Survey Inventory
The City underwent a comprehensive, citywide historic resources survey in 2015. The
findings of the survey produced a list an inventory of potential historic resources. The
inventory is list is intended to be used by the City for future planning and decision-making
and to inform property owners about the potential historic significance of their properties.
Inclusion on the list inventory does not automatically constitute a determination of
significance for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Properties identified as potentially individually eligible through survey
will still be evaluated on an individual basis for historic significance as development is
proposed. The list of potentially eligible historic resources inventory is incorporated by
reference into this Chapter and may be amended as the City deems necessary.
XX.XX.060 Local Eligibility and Designation Criteria
A. Criteria for Designation
Historic Landmark. On the recommendation of the Commission, the City Council may
designate an individual resource (building, structure, object, or site) if it meets one or
more of the following local eligibility criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of Arcadia’s or California’s history;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local or California history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of master, or possesses high artistic values;
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the city or state.
Historic District. On the recommendation of the Commission, the City Council may
designate a historic district if it meets one or more of the four criteria in Section
XX.XX.060(A) and:
1. It possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical
development.
2. A minimum of 60 percent of the buildings within the proposed historic district
contribute to the district’s significance.
5
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
B. Automatic Designation
Any property individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California
Register of Historical Resources shall be automatically considered an individually eligible
historic resource by the City. designated a local historic landmark. Any neighborhood or
area listed in the National Register or California Register shall be automatically
designated a local historic district.
C. Considerations for Evaluating Properties – Age
A resource considered for listing as a local historic landmark must be at least 45 years of
age, unless it can be demonstrated that the resource has achieved exceptional importance
within the last 45 years.
D. Considerations for Evaluating Properties - Integrity
In order for a resource to be eligible for designation as a local landmark or historic
district, the resource must retain sufficient integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a
historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics that
existed during the time period within which the resource attained significance. Only after
significance has been established should the issue of integrity be addressed. There are
seven aspects of integrity, as defined by the National Register: location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Since significance thresholds
associated with local listing are generally less rigid than those associated with listing at
the state or national levels, a greater degree of flexibility shall be provided when
evaluating the integrity of a locally eligible historic resource, as opposed to one eligible
for listing in the National or California Registers. For this reason, it is possible that a
historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the National
or California Registers, but may still be eligible for listing as a local historic landmark at
the local level. Integrity shall be determined with reference to the particular
characteristics that support the resource’s eligibility under the appropriate criteria of
significance.
XX.XX.070 Designation Procedures
A. Applications for Nomination
1. Any person or group, including the City, may request the designation of a historic
resource as a historic landmark or district by submitting an application to the
City.
2. All applications shall be completed using a form provided by the City and shall
contain all required information, including the following:
a. For individual resources, a historic resource evaluation report completed
by a qualified historic preservation consultant;
b. For historic districts, a historic resources survey report completed by a
qualified historic preservation consultant;
c. Required fees as per City’s Fee Resolution;
6
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
d. The City may require the applicant to submit additional information
regarding the historic significance of the resource, including but not
limited to photographs, plans, deeds, permits, and any other materials
that may provide pertinent information about the resource.
B. Initial Application Review
1. Completeness Review. Within 30 days of filing, City staff shall review all
applications for completeness and accuracy before they are accepted as
complete. The applicant shall be notified by letter whether the application is
either complete and being processed or is incomplete and additional
information, includinges but not limited to the information listed in Section A.2,
indicated in the letter from the City, must be provided. If an applicant fails to
provide the additional information within 30 days following the date of the
letter, or shorter time frame as determined by the Director or designee, the
application shall expire and be deemed withdrawn without any further action
by the City, unless an extension is approved by the Director or designee for good
cause shown.
C. Owner Notification. After determining the application is complete, City staff shall
notify the owner(s) of record by letter that an application for designation has been
submitted for their property within ten (10) days of reviewing the application of
deeming the application complete.
D. Owner Consent to Designation. City staff shall obtain p Prior to scheduling the matter
for consideration by the Commission, a written statement by the property owner in
the case of historic landmark designation, or written statements by 75 percent of
property owners in the case of historic district designation, shall consenting to such
designation. In the case of an individual property, if the owner does not consent to the
designation, the application shall be automatically withdrawn, unless the
Commission or Council calls up the request for Review, as specified in Section
9108.07.030.
E. Moratorium on Permits. No alteration or demolition permits for an individually
eligible historic resource or contributor to an eligible historic district shall be issued
after an application for designation is submitted. The moratorium on permits shall
continue through the process of historic landmark or district designation, until a final
decision to adopt (or not adopt) the designation has been made by City Council.
F. Commission Review. Applications for approval of historic landmark and district
nominations shall be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission shall hold a
public meeting to determine if the property meets one or more of the criteria
established in Section XX.XX.060(A) of this Chapter. The public hearing shall be
noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX
of the Arcadia Municipal Code. After a determination is made regarding the proposed
designation, the Commission shall submit a report and recommendation to the City
Council that the application be approved or denied. Within ten (10) days of the public
hearing, the Commission shall notify the applicant(s) and owner(s) of record by letter
of its determination.
7
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
G. City Council. The City Council has the sole authority to designate a historic resource
as a historic landmark or district. Nominations recommended for approval by the
Commission shall be reviewed by the Council at a public hearing. The hearing shall be
noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX
of the Arcadia Municipal Code. At the hearing, the Council shall adopt or reject historic
designation. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the Council shall notify the
applicant(s) and owner(s) of record by letter of the designation.
H. City Council Supersedes Owner’s Objection to Designation. The Council shall have the
power to revoke an owner’s objection to historic landmark or district designation if,
by a supermajority vote (4-1), it determines the resource satisfies the following:
1. It meets one or more of the eligibility criteria established in Section XX.XX.060(A),
AND
2. Its designation as a local landmark or district is a social benefit to Arcadia’s
citizens that outweighs the private burden of designation, and designation does
not damage the property owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefits
designation provides to the community.
I. Rescission of Designation. Once a historic landmark or district has been designated,
it shall not be repealed by the City Council unless it is found that the evidence used to
establish designation was erroneous, or the designated resource no longer meets the
criteria set forth in Section XX.XX.060(A). A resource cannot lose its designation
status merely due to degradation by neglect. The process of rescission shall be
considered a discretionary action under CEQA.
XX.XX.080 Alterations to Historic Resources
A. General Requirements
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) is required for major and minor
alterations that may adversely affect the significance of a designated historic
resource or contributor to a designated historic district, and for major alterations
that may adversely affect the significance of an individually eligible historic
resource. or contributor to an eligible historic district.
2. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for minor alterations to
individually eligible historic resources or contributors to eligible historic
districts, or negligible alterations to any historic resource (designated or eligible).
These alterations may be issued a waiver.
3. Demolition of or a major addition to a non-contributing resource, or infill in a
designated or eligible historic district outside of the City’s designated Home
Owners Associations will be subject to the design review process described in
Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia
Development Code. All other alterations to non-contributing resources are
exempt from review and may be issued a waiver. Once a Certificate of
Appropriateness has been issued, City staff may inspect the work being
undertaken to ensure that it complies with the approved Certificate of
Appropriateness.
8
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
4. No permit shall be issued for alteration of an individual historic resource or
contributing resource in a designated historic district, or demolition of a non-
contributing resource in a designated historic district until a Certificate of
Appropriateness or waiver has been issued in accordance with this Section.
B. Levels of Review
The type of alteration being proposed and the type of resource affected by the alteration
will determine the level of review required. Unless the alteration is exempt from review
and issued a waiver, a Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A) is required for review by
City staff or the Commission. From time to time as circumstances warrant, the City may,
by resolution, modify the list of actions deemed to qualify for review by City staff or the
Commission.
1. Designated Historic Landmarks. Major alterations affecting designated historic
landmarks require a C of A and review by the Commission. The approval or denial
of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
Minor alterations affecting designated landmarks require a C of A and review by
City staff.
2. Designated Historic Districts. Major alterations affecting contributing resources
in designated historic districts require a C of A and review by the Commission.
The approval or denial of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary
action under CEQA. Minor alterations affecting contributing resources in
designated historic districts require a C of A and review by City staff. Demolition
of or major additions to non-contributing resources, and infill in designated
historic districts outside of the City’s designated Home Owners Associations
(HOAs) require design review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design
Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Alterations (with the
exception of demolition and major additions) affecting non-contributing
resources in designated historic districts outside of HOAs are exempt from review
and may be issued a waiver.
a. Note: Contributing and non-contributing properties within the City’s
designated HOAs are not subject to the City’s design review process.
However, the HOAs shall adhere to and apply the Design Guidelines as
well as the HOAs’ enabling resolution in their design review process and
forward a recommendation to the Commission/City staff regarding the
design of the alteration, addition, or new infill in the designated historic
district. The City shall have final authority on the approval or denial of the
design.
3. Individually Eligible Historic Resources. Major alterations affecting individually
eligible historic resources require a C of A and review by City staff. The approval
or denial of such major alterations shall be deemed a discretionary action under
CEQA. Minor alterations affecting individually eligible historic resources are
exempt from review and may be issued a waiver.
4. Eligible Historic Districts. Major alterations affecting contributing resources in
eligible historic districts require a C of A and review by City staff. Minor
alterations affecting contributing resources in eligible historic districts are
9
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
exempt from review and may be issued a waiver. Demolition of or major additions
to non-contributing resources and infill in eligible historic districts outside the
City’s designated HOAs require design review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site
Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Alterations
(with the exception of demolition and major additions) affecting non-
contributing resources in eligible historic districts outside of HOAs are exempt
from review and may be issued a waiver.
a. Note: Contributing and non-contributing properties within the City’s
designated HOAs are not subject to the City’s design review process.
However, the HOAs shall adhere to and apply the Design Guidelines as
well as the HOAs’ enabling resolution in their design review process. The
HOAs shall have final authority on the approval or denial of the design.
4. Negligible alterations affecting all historic resources (designated and eligible
individual resources and resources in designated historic districts) are exempt
from review and may be issued a waiver.
C. A major alteration is defined as:
1. Any demolition, rebuild, or relocation of an individual historic resource or
contributing resource in a designated historic district. Certificate of
Appropriateness applications for the demolition or relocation of designated
historic resources shall comply with procedures set forth in Section
XX.XX.080(J)(K). Any demolition of a designated historic resource, potential
historic resource, or structure/building that is 50 years of age or older shall be
subject to the Certificate of Demolition procedures set forth in Section 9107.
2. Any undertaking that significantly alters or changes a historic resource’s street-
facing façade or side façades visible from the public right-of-way, including major
changes to or additions of fenestration openings; the application of new exterior
wall cladding or coating which changes the appearance, design, or texture of a
property; and the addition of any other architectural features.
3. Any addition of square footage to a historic resource that is visible from the public
right-of-way.
4. Infill in a designated historic district. Infill in a designated historic district
requires design review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design
Review), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
5. Demolition of or a major addition to a non-contributing resource in a designated
historic district. Demolition of and major additions to non-contributors requires
design review pursuant to Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article
IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
6. Any other undertaking determined major by the City.
D. A minor alteration is defined as:
1. Any removal of insignificant exterior features of a historic resource, including
additions, doors, windows, and exterior siding material that are non-original or
otherwise lack historic integrity.
10
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
2. Any undertaking requiring a permit that does not change substantially the
exterior character-defining features of a historic resource, including minor
additions on secondary façades.
3. Any undertaking not requiring a permit that materially alters significant features
of a historic resource or that may adversely affect the significance of a historic
resource, including replacement of windows and doors in existing openings or
resurfacing exterior finishes (i.e. stucco in a noticeably different texture) on
street-facing façades.
4. Any undertaking to the environmental setting or landscape of a designated
historic landmark or property within a designated historic district if the setting is
significant to the historic resource and has been defined as significant in the
nomination for the resource.
5. In designated historic districts, demolition or alteration of garages and other
ancillary structures built within the period of significance on both contributing
and non-contributing properties, and new construction of such structures on any
designated historic property (district contributors and individual properties).
6. Any other undertaking determined minor by the City.
E. A negligible alteration is defined as:
1. All work that is entirely interior and does not affect the exterior of a historic
resource, except for interior features that are specifically mentioned as character-
defining features in a landmark nomination adopted by the City.
2. Installation of rooftop equipment, including solar panels, not visible from the
public right-of-way.
3. Re-roofing in a different material that replicates the existing or original roofing.
4. Window and door repair to correct deterioration, decay, or damage to existing
original windows or doors.
5. If original windows and doors are beyond repair, replacement windows and
doors matching the appearance of the original windows and doors.
6. Repair of existing historic ornament (including, but not limited to, porches,
cornices, plaster work, and eaves).
7. Any additional ordinary maintenance and repair to correct deterioration, decay,
and/or damage to existing historic material.
8. Replacement of a non-historic garage door with one that is compatible in terms
of design and material, and minimizes its visual impacts on the character-defining
features of the historic resource.
9. Seismic upgrades that minimize the alteration of character-defining features of a
historic resource.
10. Any other undertaking determined negligible by the City.
F. Applications
11
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
1. If a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with this Section, a
Certificate of Appropriateness application shall be filed with the City.
2. All applications shall include the following:
a. A report by a qualified preservation consultant detailing the project’s
compliance with, and potential deviation from, the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards (a Standards compliance report).
b. For new construction, additions, and relocations, plans and specifications
showing the existing and proposed exterior appearances;
c. Photographs (including views of all façades) of the building affected by
the proposed project. Photographs shall be in color and include close-up
views of any specific elements under consideration (i.e. windows or doors
if alterations are proposed) and views of surrounding properties;
d. If in a designated historic district, relationship of the proposed work to
the surrounding environment;
e. For new construction in designated historic districts, relationship to the
existing scale, massing, architectural style, site and streetscape,
landscaping, and signage;
f. Any other information the City reasonably determines to be necessary for
review of the proposed work.
3. Upon reviewing the application for completeness, City staff shall determine
whether the proposed work requires Commission or staff-level review. If the
project requires review by the Commission, City staff shall submit the application
to the Commission within ten (10) days of the application submittal.
G. City Staff Review
Certificate of Appropriateness applications requiring administrative approval will be
reviewed by City staff. C of A applications requiring staff-level review are defined in
Section XX.XX.80(B) of this Chapter. No public hearing shall be required for applications
reviewed by City staff. City staff may approve or approve with conditions the application.
City staff shall notify by letter the applicant within ten (10) days of receiving the C of A
application. Decisions of City staff regarding the application are subject to appeal per
Section XX.XX.110 (Appeals) of this Chapter.
H. Commission Review
Certificate of Appropriateness applications requiring approval by the Commission will be
reviewed by the Commission at a public hearing. C of A applications requiring
Commission review are defined in Section XX.XX.80(B) of this Chapter. The public hearing
shall be noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings), Article
IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. At the hearing, the Commission shall adopt a resolution
approving, conditionally approving, or denying the application. The Commission shall
notify by letter the applicant within ten (10) days of the hearing. Decisions of the
Commission regarding the application are subject to appeal per Section XX.XX.110
(Appeals) of this Chapter.
12
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
I. In evaluating Certificate of Appropriateness applications, City staff, the Commission,
and/or the City Council upon appeal shall consider the architectural style, design,
massing, arrangement, texture, materials, color, and any other relevant factors
associated with the affected historic resource. Applications shall not be approved
unless:
1. With regard to designated historic landmarks, the proposed work will neither
adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the
resource nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the resource and its site;
2. With regard to properties within designated historic districts, the proposed work
will neither adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and
appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring properties, nor
adversely affect the historical or architectural character of the district;
3. The proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and any other applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
4. The proposed work will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a designated historic resource in accordance with CEQA.
5. For proposed work that may adversely affect the significance of an eligible
historic resource or district, the review body (City staff, the Commission, or the
City Council upon appeal) may withhold approval of the project up to but not
exceeding 180 days to identify project alternatives or to initiate the designation
process.
J. Demolition of Designated Historic Resources
A Certificate of Demolition is required for designated historic landmarks and contributing
resources in designated historic districts. Applications for demolition shall be reviewed
by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section 9107.07 (Certificates of
Demolition), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code. Approval or denial of a
demolition application shall be deemed a discretionary action under CEQA.
K. Relocation of Designated Historic Resources
An application for relocation is required for designated historic landmarks and
contributing resources in designated historic districts. Applications for relocation shall
be reviewed by the Commission following the procedures set forth in Section
XX.XX.080(H). Approval or denial of a relocation application shall be deemed a
discretionary action under CEQA.
1. Relocation plans shall include:
a. Plans and specifications showing the current exterior appearance of the
building to be moved;
b. A site plan of the proposed receiver site;
13
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
c. Photographs (including views of all façades) of the building to be moved
and photographs of the proposed receiver site. Photographs shall be in
color and include views of surrounding properties;
d. Any other information the City reasonably determines to be necessary for
review of the proposed work.
2. Criteria for relocation. The following criteria may result in approval of an
application for relocation of a designated historic resource:
a. Relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic integrity of the historic resource;
b. Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the
historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the
historic resource is located or at the proposed receiver site;
c. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition
on the site and no other measures for correcting the condition have been
determined feasible, or the relocation is necessary to preserve the historic
resource and all other feasible options for preservation on the original site
have failed, as determined by the Commission.
XX.XX.090 Certificates of Economic Hardship
A Certificate of Economic Hardship process is established to allow a property owner to
carry out work that may adversely affect the value or significance of a historic resource
on the basis of extreme financial hardship or adversity.
A. Income-Producing Properties. In order to establish economic hardship for an income-
producing property, it must be demonstrated that a reasonable rate of return cannot
be obtained from the property in its present condition or if rehabilitated.
B. Non-Income-Producing Properties. In order to establish economic hardship for a non-
income-producing property, it must be demonstrated that, without approval of the
proposed demolition or remodel, the property owner would be deprived of all
reasonable use of or return from the property.
C. Applications. Certificate of Economic Hardship applications shall be submitted on a
form provided by the City and shall contain all required information. The City m ay
require the owner to furnish additional material evidence supporting the request for
exemption.
D. City Staff Review. Applications for Certificates of Economic Hardship shall be
reviewed by City staff following the same procedure for reviewing Certificates of
Appropriateness applications set forth in Section XX.XX.080(H)(I) of this Chapter.
E. Approval. The Commission, and the City Council if appealed, shall approve the
Certificate of Economic Hardship only if the following findings are made:
1. Denial of the application would decrease the value of the subject property so as
to deprive the owner of any reasonable economic return on the property;
14
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
2. Denial of the application would cause an immediate hardship because of
conditions unique to the specific property involved;
3. Sale or rental of the property is not financially feasible, when considering the cost
of holding such property for uses permitted in the zone;
4. Rental at a reasonable rate of return is not feasible;
5. Denial of the application would damage the property owner unreasonably in
comparison to the benefit conferred to the community.
XX.XX.100 Incentives for Historic Preservation
A. Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program (Mills Act) was enacted in 1972 by the
State of California and grants participating local governments authority to enter into
contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the
repair, rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of their properties to receive
property tax relief. The City shall determine on an annual basis how many contracts it
will accept and may set a financial cap on the program.
1. Qualified Historic Properties. All individually designated historic landmarks,
contributing resources in designated historic districts, and properties that are
individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California
Register of Historical Resources are eligible for Mills Act contracts, pursuant to
the provisions of Article 12, Sections 50280 through 50289, Chapter 1, Part 1,
Title 5, of the California Government Code.
2. All Mills Act contracts shall comply with Section 50281 of the California
Government Code, which include, but are not limited to, the following provisions:
a. The term of the contract shall be for a minimum of ten (10) years.
b. The applicant and property owner shall be required to comply during the
term of the contract with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties as well as the State Historic Building
Code.
c. The City shall be authorized to conduct periodic inspections to determine
the applicant’s and owner’s compliance with the contract.
d. The contract shall be binding upon all successors-in-interest of the owner.
3. Application Requirements. All Mills Act applications shall be filed with the City
and include the following:
a. A description and photographs of the property;
b. A copy of the latest grant deed, deed of trust, or title report for the
property;
c. A rehabilitation plan/maintenance list of the work to be completed within
the ten-year contract period, including cost estimates and the year in
which the work will be completed;
15
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
d. A financial analysis form showing current property taxes and estimated
taxes for the property under the contract;
e. Required fees per the City’s Fee Resolution.
4. City Review and Commission Recommendation. Mills Act applications shall be
submitted to the City by the end of June 30. Following the application submittal
deadline, the Commission will review all applications. Within 30 days from the
beginning of review, the Commission will make recommendations to the City
Council on the merits of the proposed applications.
5. City Council Action. City Council may in its sole and absolute discretion authorize
the execution of all Mills Act contracts. Approval of contracts shall be procedural
and shall not require a public hearing.
6. Renewal. A Mills Act contract shall be a perpetual, ten-year contract that
automatically renews annually unless and until the property owner/applicant or
the City gives written notice to the other that the contract will not be renewed
upon the expiration of its current term.
7. Cancellation. A Mills Act contract may be cancelled or modified if the City Council
finds, after written notice to the applicant and the property owner, either of the
following conditions:
a. The owner/applicant is responsible for noncompliance with any terms or
conditions of the contract, or any provision in this Chapter; or
misrepresentation or fraud was used in the process of obtaining the
contract.
b. The subject property has been destroyed by fire, earthquake, flooding, or
other calamity, or it has been taken by eminent domain.
8. Cancellation Fee. If a Mills Act contract is cancelled due to noncompliance, the
property owner shall be liable to the City for a cancellation fee equal to 12.5
percent of the current fair market value of the property.
9. Work Plan Amendments. The contract may provide that alterations to the
approved work plan require review and approval by City staff.
10. Mills Act Contract. The City Attorney shall prepare and maintain a current Mills
Act contract with all required provisions specified by state law and this section.
B. Other Incentives for Historic Preservation
1. Development Incentives. The following incentives may be applied to a project
approved by the Commission, and subject to approval by the City Council:
a. State Historic Building Code. The California State Historic Building Code
(SBHC) provides alternative building regulations for the preservation,
restoration, rehabilitation, or relocation of historic resources. The SHBC
shall be used in evaluating any building permit for work affecting a
historic resource.
b. Parking Modifications
16
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
i. The required number of parking spaces shall be the same as the
number of spaces that existed on the site at the time the site was
developed, and shall be maintained and not reduced. Adaptive
reuse projects shall otherwise be exempt from the provisions
set forth in Section 9103.07 (Off-Street Parking and Loading),
Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
XX.XX.110 Appeals
A. The owner of a property subject to review, or the applicant, if different than the
owner, may appeal any decision by City staff or the Commission under this Chapter
pursuant to Section 9108.07 (Appeals), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
Standard appeal fees shall apply.
B. Any decision regarding an eligible or a designated historic landmark or historic
district, or individually eligible historic resource by City staff shall become final ten
(10) business days following the date of the decision unless an appeal to the
Commission is filed.
C. Any decision regarding an eligible or a designated historic landmark or historic
district, or individually eligible historic resource by the Commission shall become
final 30 business days following the date of the decision unless an appeal to the City
Council is filed.
D. Individual historic landmark designation applications and Certificates of
Appropriateness for individual historic resources shall be appealed by property
owners only.
E. Certificates of Appropriateness for contributing resources in designated historic
districts may be appealed by any property owner or resident within the boundaries
of the district.
XX.XX.120 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
The owner of a designated historic landmark or contributor to a designated historic
district has a duty to maintain in good repair all exterior features and to comply with all
applicable codes, laws, and regulations governing the maintenance of the designated
historic resource. It is the intent of this section to preserve from deliberate or inadvertent
neglect the exterior features of designated historic resources.
A. Designated historic resources shall be protected against such decay and be kept free
from structural defects through the prompt repair of any of the following:
1. Deteriorated exterior walls, foundations, or other vertical supports that age, split,
or buckle;
2. Deteriorated ceilings, roofs, roof supports, flooring, floor supports, or other
horizontal members that age, split, or buckle;
3. Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge, or settle due to defective material or
deterioration;
4. Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose exterior plaster;
17
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
5. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior walls, including lack of
paint or weathering due to lack of paint, or other protective coating;
6. Any fault or defect in the building that renders it not watertight or otherwise
structurally unsafe.
B. It shall be the duty of the City Building Official to enforce this section.
XX.XX.130 Ordinary Maintenance and Repair
A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or
repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any property covered by this
Chapter that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance
thereof.
XX.XX.140 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
A. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prohibit the construction, alteration,
rehabilitation, restoration, demolition, or relocation of any historic resource, when
such action is required for public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition
which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building
Code.
B. For declared public hazards that are not an immediate threat to public safety, the
Commission may hold a public hearing in order to comment on the proposed
demolition. The public hearing shall be noticed in accordance with Section 9108.13
(Public Notices and Hearings), Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
XX.XX.150 Enforcement Penalties
A. Any person who violates a requirement of this Chapter or fails to obey an order issued
by the City Council, Commission, or City staff, or fails to comply with a condition of
approval of any certificate or permit issued under this Chapter, shall be subject to the
provisions set forth in Chapter 2 (Penalty Provisions), Article I of the Arcadia
Municipal Code.
B. Alteration or demolition of a historic resource in violation of this Chapter is expressly
declared to be a nuisance and shall be abated as deemed appropriate by the City.
C. Alteration or demolition of an individually eligible or designated historic resource in
violation of this Chapter shall authorize the City to issue a temporary moratorium on
development of the subject property for a period of up to, but not exceeding 24
months from the date the City becomes aware of the alteration or demolition. The
purpose of the moratorium is to provide the City with sufficient time to study and
determine appropriate mitigation measures for the alteration or removal of the
historic resource. Mitigation measures as determined by the City Council shall be
imposed as conditions of any subsequent permit for development of the subject
property.
D. In addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity, the City Attorney may
maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain a violation, or cause, where
possible, the complete or partial restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of any
18
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
historic resource that has been demolished, partially demolished, altered, or partially
altered in violation of this Chapter.
XX.XX.160 Definitions
“Arcadia Register of Historic Resources” means the official list of designated historic
resources in the city.
“California Environmental Quality Act” (or “CEQA”) refers to the statute and regulations
applying to public agencies in California as codified in the California Public Resources Code
Sections 21000 through 21178, and Title 14 CCR, Section 753, and Chapter 3, Sections 15000
through 15387. CEQA applies to all discretionary work proposed to be conducted or
approved by a California public agency, including private projects requiring discretionary
approval.
“Certificate of Appropriateness” shall refer to the required review prior to issuance of an
alteration permit to ensure alterations to designated and individually potentially eligible
historic resources are in compliance with this Chapter and CEQA guidelines.
“Certificate of Demolition” shall refer to the required review prior to issuance of a demolition
permit to ensure completion of a full historical evaluation of buildings, structures, and objects
that are 50 years of age or older to determine historical significance. See Section 9107.19
(Certificates of Demolition), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
“Character-Defining Features” refer to the visual and physical features that give a building its
identity and distinctive character. They may include the overall building shape, its materials,
craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and aspects of its site and
environment.
“Commission” means the City of Arcadia Planning Commission established pursuant to the
provisions of Part 5, Chapter 2, Article II of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
“Contributing Resource” (or “Contributor”) means any building, structure, object, site,
planning feature, sign, area, place, landscape, or natural feature within a designated historic
district that contributes to the district’s historic, cultural, or architectural significance.
“Designation” means the act of recognizing, labeling, and listing a historic resource in the
Arcadia Register of Historic Resources by the City Council. A designation formally establishes
that a historic resource has historic significance.
“Demolition” means any act or process that destroys, in whole or in part, a building, structure,
object, or site or permanently impairs its structural integrity.
“Individually Eligible Historic Resource” means an individual type of historic resource that
has been determined to appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
California Register of Historical Resources, or Arcadia Register of Historic Resources through
a survey or other evaluation process.
“Historic District” means a type of historic resource that is a geographic area comprising a
significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of buildings, structures, objects, planning
19
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
features, sites, natural/landscape features and any other features united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development.
“Historic Integrity” is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity evidenced by the
presence of characteristics that existed during the time period in which the property attained
historic significance. As defined by the National Park Service, and in accordance with the
accepted standards of professional best practices, historic integrity is the conglomeration of
seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
“Historic Landmark” is a type of historic resource that meets the eligibility criteria
established in Section XX.XX.060 of this Chapter, retains sufficient integrity, and has been
formally designated by the City.
“Historic Resource” means the broad category of all historic resource types that are
significant in the history or prehistory of the city, region, state, or nation. Historic Reso urces
include resources listed in or found to appear eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Arcadia Register of Historic
Resources. Historic resources can include buildings, structures, objects, sites, and historic
districts.
“Historic Resource Evaluation/Assessment” means a detailed study of a property to
determine its eligibility for national, state, or local historic landmark designation. A historic
resource evaluation/assessment generally results in a report including in-depth, property-
specific information about the resource. This information typically includes an
ownership/occupant history; historic contexts and themes of significance; construction
dates; a physical description of the resource, including its architectural style, materials, and
setting; approximate dates of exterior alterations; character-defining features; and a historic
integrity analysis.
“Historic Resources Survey” means a neighborhood or citywide survey to identify eligible
historic resources, including buildings, structures, objects, sites, and historic districts. A
historic resources survey generally results in a list of properties that are potentially eligible
for national, state, or local landmark designation.
“Major Additions” (or “Major Enlargements”) refer to residential enlargements larger than
500 square feet or 25 percent of the existing gross floor area before the addition, and
nonresidential enlargements equal to or exceeding 25 percent of the existing gross floor area
before the addition. See Section 9107.19 (Site Plan and Design Review), Article IX of the
Arcadia Development Code for more information regarding what constitutes a
Residential/Nonresidential Enlargement.
“Major Alterations” (or “Major Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section XX.XX.080(C)
of this Chapter.
“Mills Act Historic Property Contract” (or “Mills Act Contract”) shall mean the historic
property contract between the City and the property owner that provides the potential for
reduced property taxes in return for the rehabilitation, restoration, and preservation of a
historic resource, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50289,
Chapter 1, Part 1, Title 5.
20
DRAFT – October 10, 2018
“Minor Alterations” (or “Minor Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section XX.XX.080(D)
of this Chapter.
“Negligible Alterations” (or “Negligible Modifications/Changes”) are defined in Section
XX.XX.080(E) of this Chapter.
“Nomination” means a nomination of a historic resource for placement in the Arcadia
Register of Historic Resources pursuant to this Chapter.
“Non-Contributing Resource” (or “Non-Contributor”) means any building, structure, object,
site, sign, area, place, or natural feature within a historic district that does not meet the
criteria for eligibility, does not contribute to the district’s historic, cultural, or architectural
significance, and therefore is not a historic resource for the purposes of this Chapter.
“Qualified Professional(s)” shall mean any of the following professions/occupations:
Archaeologist shall refer to an archaeologist who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in archaeology, as defined by
the National Park Service (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61).
Architectural Historian shall refer to an architectural historian who meets and/or
exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in
architectural history, as defined by the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Historian shall refer to a historian who meets and/or exceeds the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in history, as defined by the National
Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Historic Architect shall refer to a licensed architect who meets and/or exceeds the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in historic
architecture, as defined by the National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61).
Structural Engineer shall refer to any individual registered by the State of California
to practice structural engineering and to use the title Structural Engineer pursuant to
the State of California Business and Professions Code, Chapter 7, Section 6701.
“Rebuild” shall refer to any activity where more than 50 percent of the existing
foundation/floor assembly or more than 50 percent of the exterior walls of a building are
removed. See Section 9109.01 (Definitions), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
“Relocation” shall refer to the process of physically transporting a building, structure, or
object from one location to another.
“Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” (or “Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards”) means the Standards and Guidelines developed by the United
States Department of the Interior, National Park Service for the preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, and reconstruction of historic resources. In accordance with California Code of
Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5, 15126.4(b)(1), and 15221, physical changes
to historic resources that conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are generally
considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant under CEQA and may be eligible
for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption.
Section 9108.07 – Appeals
Subsections:
9108.07.010 Purpose and Intent
9108.07.020 Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction
9108.07.030 Calls for Review
9108.07.040 Filing and Processing of Appeals
9108.07.050 Judicial Review
Purpose and Intent
This Section establishes procedures for the appeal and calls for review of determinations and decisions of the Director or
Commission.
Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction
Code Administration and Interpretation. Any determination of the Director and/or Department staff on the meaning or
applicability of the regulations contained in this Development Code that cannot be resolved with the Director, may be appeale d
to the Commission and then to the Council:
Planning Permit Decisions
Director’s Decisions. Decisions of the Director on all matters specified in Section 9108.01.050 (Development Services
Department Director) may be appealed to the Commission.
Commission’s Decisions. Any decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council.
Calls for Review
Commission or Council Review
Commission. The Commission may call for a review of any determination or decision rendered by t he Director or Department
staff, or a nomination for a designated historic resource as a landmark or district without the owner(s) consent.
Council. The Council may call for a review of any determination or decision rendered by the Commission , Director, or
Department staff, or a nomination for a designated historic resource as a landmark or district without the owner(s)
consent.
Majority Vote Required. A call for review may only be commenced by the affirmative vote of the majority of the members
present of the applicable Review Authority.
Supermajority Vote Required. A supermajority vote is required if the Council supersedes the owner(s) objection to designate
a historic resource as a landmark or district as specified in Section XX.XX.070.H.
Process for Calling for a Review
Initiation by Commissioners. Any Commissioner may initiate a call for review of a Director’s determination or decision by
filing a written request with the Department before the effective date of the action, which means within 10 days following
the date of the determination or decision. Any Commissioner may initiate a call for review of an application for a
designated historic resource as a landmark or district without owner(s) the consent, which means 10 days following the
date the application was withdrawn. The Commission shall follow the review process as specified in Section XX.XX.070.F
and then forward a recommendation to the City Council, as specified in Section XX.XX.070.G.
Initiation by Council Members
a. Any Council member may initiate a call for review of a Commission’s or Director’s determination or decision by filing
a written request with the City Clerk before the effective date of the action, which means within 10 days following
the date of the determination or decision. Any Council member may initiate a call for review of an application for
designated of a historic resource as a landmark or district without the owner(s) consent, which means 10 days
following the date the application was withdrawn.
b. The Council may call for the review of a Director’s determination or decision directly, or may direct the Commission
to first consider the matter and provide a written recommendation to the Council. For nomination of a designated
historic resource without the owner’s consent, the Commission shall first review the nomination and follow the review
process as specified in Section XX.XX.070.F and then forward a recommendation to the City Council, as specified
in Section XX.XX.070.G.
Consideration of Call for Review. The Commission or Council, as applicable, shall consider the call for review at its next
regularly scheduled meeting.
Majority Vote by Review Authority. If the Commission or Council, as applicable, votes to review the determination or
decision, a subsequent review hearing shall be scheduled to consider the merits of the review. Following a majority vote
to proceed, the request shall be treated in compliance with Subsection 9108.07.040 (Filing and Processing of Appeals).
Notice to Applicant. If the Review Authority is reviewing the decision of a discretionary application, the applicant shall be
informed of the aspects of the application and the determination or decision that the Review Authority will consider.
Effect of Call for Review
a. A request for a call for review by a member of a Review Authority shall stay the effective date of a determination or
decision until the Review Authority can make a decision on the call for review request.
b. The timely filing of a call for review does not extend the time in which an appeal of a determination or decision shall
be filed. The normal appeal period shall continue to run in compliance with Subparagraph 9108.07.040 B. (Form
and Timing of an Appeal), below.
c. If the Review Authority decides to call for review of the subject determination or decision, then the previous
determination or decision shall be stayed.
d. If the Review Authority decides not to call for review the subject determination or decision, then the determination
or decision shall become final unless the appeal period has not expired.
Filing of an Appeal Pending a Call for Review
Right to File an Appeal. Any person may file a timely appeal in compliance with this Section even though a call for
review has been filed in compliance with this Section.
Effect of Filing an Appeal. The filing of the appeal shall serve to protect the rights of the appellant(s) in the event the
call for review is subsequently withdrawn or rejected.
Withdrawal or Failure of a Call for Review. If a request for a call for review is withdrawn after filing, or is rejected, the
remaining days of the call for review period shall run until the original 10-day period has expired.
Notice and Public Hearing
a. A call for review hearing shall be a public hearing if the original determination or decision required a public hearing.
b. Notice of the public hearing shall be the same as the original determination or decision, in compliance with Section
9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings).
c. The public hearing shall be conducted in compliance with Section 9108.13 (Public Notices and Hearings).
Fees Not Required. Fees shall not be required in conjunction with the filing of a call for review.
Required Votes. The final action calling for review of a determination or decision shall require an affirmative majority vote of
those members lawfully authorized to vote on the matter.
Concurrent Commission Recommendations. When the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council on a legislative
matter (e.g., development agreement, Development Code amendment, General Plan amendment, specific plan or
amendment, or Zoning Map amendment), any concurrent companion decision(s) by the Commission on an approval, permit,
or Variance, or other non-legislative land use permit application concerning, in whole or in part, the same parcel(s) shall also
be deemed to be timely called up for review by the Council.
Filing and Processing of Appeals
Eligibility
Eligible Appellants. An appeal in compliance with this Section may be filed by any interested person(s).
Interested Person(s). For purposes of this Section an interested person(s) is a person who informed the City of his or her
concerns about an application for a permit or approval at a public hearing, either in person or through a representative,
or by other appropriate means (e.g., in writing), or was unable to do so for good cause and pays the applicable fee in
compliance with the Fee Schedule; and
a. Objects to the action taken on the permit or approval;
b. Completes the required City appeal form completely and accurately. The appeal will not be deemed complete and
timely filed until all information on the appeal form is verified by the office receiving the appeal form; and
c. Wishes to appeal any appealable action to a higher Review Authority.
Appeals by Councilmember or Commissioner. Any action or decision by the Commission, Director, or Department staff
rendered in compliance with this Development Code may be appealed by a Councilmember or Commissioner acting as
an individual, in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Political Practices Act.
Shall Not Be Authorized to Participate. Any Councilmember or Commissioner filing an appeal as an individual shall not be
authorized to participate in any decision concerning that action or decision.
Form and Timing of Appeal. An appeal shall be submitted in writing and shall specifically state the pertinent facts and the basis
for the appeal.
Pertinent Facts and the Basis for the Appeal. The pertinent facts and the basis for the appeal shall include, at a minimum,
the specific grounds for the appeal, where there was an error or abuse of discretion by the previous Review Authority
(e.g., Commission, Director, or other City official) in the consideration and action on the matter being appealed, and/or
where the decision was not supported by the evidence on the record. Appeals filed by a City official, a Commissioner,
or a Councilmember shall be exempt from the requirements of this Subparagraph.
Shall be Filed within 10 Days. The appeal shall be filed with the Department or City Clerk, as applicable, within 10 days
following the actual date the decision was rendered.
a. Appeals addressed to the Commission shall be filed with the Department; and
b. Appeals addressed to the Council shall be filed with the City Clerk.
Accompanied by Filing Fee. The appeal shall be accompanied by the filing fee identified in the Fee Schedule.
Suspension of Action. Once an appeal is filed, any action on the associated project is suspended until the appeal is
processed and a final decision is rendered by the applicable Review Authority.
Scope of Planning Permit Appeals. An appeal of a decision on any planning permit specified in Division 7 (Permit Processing
Procedures) shall be de novo, and shall not be limited to issues raised at the public hearing, or in writing before the heari ng,
or information that was not known at the time of the decision that is being appealed.
Report and Scheduling of Hearing
1. When an appeal has been filed, the Director shall prepare a report on the matter, including all of the application materials
in question, and schedule the matter for a public hearing by the appropriate Review Authority identified in Subsection
9108.07.020 (Appeal Subjects and Jurisdiction), above.
2. Notice of the hearing shall be provided, and the hearing shall be conducted, in compliance with Section 9108.13 (Public
Notice and Hearings).
3. Any interested party may appear and be heard regarding the appeal.
Decision
1. During the appeal hearing, the Review Authority may:
a. Affirm, affirm in part, modify, or reverse the action, determination, or decision that is the subject of the appeal, based
upon findings of fact about the particular case. The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal,
and verify the compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with this Development Code;
b. Adopt additional or different project aspects or conditions of approval, that may address issues or concerns other
than the subject of the appeal;
c. Deny the planning permit approved by the previous Review Authority, even where the appellant only requested a
modification or elimination of one or more project aspects or conditions of approval; or
d. If new or different evidence is presented on appeal, the Review Authority may refer the matter to the Director or
Commission, as applicable, for further consideration.
e. The decision of the Council shall be final.
2. Within 60 days following the initial public hearing, the Review Authority shall render its decision on the appeal, unless it
is continued for good cause.
3. In the event of a tie vote by the Review Authority on an appeal, the decision being appealed shall stand.
Provision of Notice of Decision
1. Following the final decision on an appeal of a permit or other approval required by this Development Code, the City shall
provide notice of its final decision to the appellant, applicant, property owner or owner’s representative, and to any person
who specifically requested notice of the City’s final decision.
2. The notice of the final decision shall contain applicable findings, conditions of approval, and the reporting/monitoring
requirements deemed necessary to mitigate any impacts and protect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or
general welfare of the City.
Effective Date of Appeal Decision. No permit or license shall be issued for any use involved in an appeal until the final decision
on the application shall have become final in the following manner:
Commission’s Decision. A decision by the Commission is final and effective after 5:00 p.m. on the 11 th day following the
actual date the final decision is rendered, if no appeal to the decision has been filed with the Council or called up by the
Council.
Council’s Decision
Adopted by Ordinance. A decision of the Council adopted by ordinance is final and shall become effective on the 31st
day following the date the ordinance is actually adopted by the Council, unless otherwise provided in the adopting
ordinance.
Adopted by Resolution. A decision of the Council adopted by resolution is final and shall be effective on the date the
decision is rendered.
Judicial Review
No person shall seek judicial review of a City decision on a planning permit or other matter in compliance with this Developm ent
Code unless and until all available appeals to the Commission and Council have been first exhausted in compliance with this
Section.
List of Properties
Eligible as Historic Resources
Individually Eligible Resources
1
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
1 5773010003 8 1st Ave N Commercial
Office/Retail Building
Arcadia Office
Building 1930 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Storefronts
altered (some
windows
replaced, some
doors replaced),
awnings added,
signage added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Commercial and
Recreational
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s commercial building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s early patterns of commercial
development, representing the
establishment of the city’s historic
commercial core at 1st Avenue and
Huntington Drive. It is one of very few
surviving commercial properties in the
city associated with this period of
development. This building originally
housed a physician, dentist, lawyer,
realtor, and variety store.
3CS/5S3
2 5773019025 201 1st Ave S Commercial Building
South 1st Avenue-
Bonita Street
Commercial Historic
District Contributor
1937 Building Art Deco Gray P. Belthke Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Art Deco
This commercial building is
significant as an excellent
example of Art Deco architecture.
It exhibits high quality of design
and distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its flat roof with parapet,
smooth stucco wall cladding,
fluted pilasters capped with low-
relief decorative elements, and
verticality emphasized by its
central tower entry (marked by a
caduceus, the symbol for
medicine).
3S/3CS/5S3
3 5779001900 301 1st Ave S Educational Building
Arcadia
Grammar
School; First
Avenue School
First Avenue Middle
School 1919 Building Art Deco
Some windows
replaced, rear
additions
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Institutional
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s elementary school building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s early development patterns; it
exemplifies the expansion of civic and
infrastructure improvements as the city’s
population grew in the first decades of
the 20th century. Originally known as
Arcadia Grammar School (later renamed
First Avenue School), it is one of few
surviving institutional properties in
Arcadia associated with this period of
development, and the earliest extant
school in the city. Its
remodel/reconstruction in 1935 was
funded by the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) and is reflective of
federally-funded civic and infrastructure
improvements implemented to serve the
city's growing population in the 1930s.
This evaluation pertains to the original
school building fronting on S. 1st
Avenue and does not include other
buildings added to the campus at a later
date.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Art Deco
First Avenue Middle School is
significant as an excellent
example of Art Deco institutional
architecture; it exemplifies the
rebuilding effort that took place in
school's throughout Southern
California after the 1933 Long
Beach Earthquake (the school
was originally Neoclassical in
style). The school’s distinctive
architectural features relating to
its 1935 Art Deco remodel include
its flat roof (with parapet), smooth
stucco wall surfaces, vertical
fluted pilasters, and ornamental
chevron-shaped metalwork at its
primary entry. This evaluation
pertains to the original school
building fronting on S. 1st Avenue
and does not include other
buildings added to the campus at
a later date.
3CS/5S3
4 5773004002 314 1st Ave N Utilities Building
Southern
California Gas
Company
1928 Building Vernacular
Awnings added,
signage added,
side façade re-
clad with scored
stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Institutional
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s institutional building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s early development patterns; it
exemplifies the expansion of civic and
infrastructure improvements as the city’s
population grew in the first decades of
the 20th century. Originally an office for
the Southern California Gas Company, it
is one of few surviving institutional
properties in the city associated with this
period of development.
3CS/5S3
5 5779002001 324 1st Ave S Clubhouse Women's Club of
Arcadia 1931 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Re-clad with
textured stucco,
one large front
window
replaced,
security window
bars added, AC
unit added,
perimeter wall
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Institutional
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s institutional building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s early development patterns; it
exemplifies the expansion of civic and
infrastructure improvements as the city’s
population grew in the first decades of
the 20th century. In continuous use as
the home of the Women's Club of
Arcadia ever since its construction, it is
one of few surviving institutional
properties in the city associated with this
early period of development.
3CS/5S3
6 5779003002 420 1st Ave S Restaurant A&W Bento-Ya 1959 Building Mid-Century Modern Ben Vanlaar
(owner)
Carport re-clad
with textured
stucco, signage
replaced
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
This former A&W restaurant is
significant as a 1950s drive-in restaurant
along a major commercial thoroughfare
in Arcadia. Its prominent street frontage
and drive-in parking configuration
exemplify auto-centric commercial
development during the postwar period.
It is one of few examples of the type in
the city.
5S3
7 5779010033 500 1st Ave S Funeral Home
Glasser & Johns
Chapel &
Mortuary
Universal Funeral
Chapel 1938 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Some side
windows
replaced,
primary door
replaced,
awnings added,
entry steps tiled,
garage doors
replaced
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Commercial
Development, 1936-
1945
This 1930s commercial building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s continued progress and
development during a time when
prosperity and growth were at a
standstill in much of the nation due to
the Great Depression and World War II.
Originally known as the Glasser & Johns
Chapel & Mortuary, the building has
been in continuous operation as a
funeral home since its construction in
1938. Intact commercial properties
associated with this period of Arcadia's
development are extremely rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This commercial building is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
low-pitched gable roof capped
with clay tile roofing, stucco wall
cladding, and arched primary
entry.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
2
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
8 5779017024 700 1st Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1921 Building Craftsman One side window
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
9 5789013008 1881 1st Ave S Religious Building Church of the
Transfiguration
1926 (moved to
current location in
1951)
Building Spanish Colonial
Revival F. Tipton Concrete ramp
added at entry
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This church is significant as an
excellent example of Spanish
Colonial Revival architecture. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its stucco wall cladding,
arched window openings, and
gable roof capped with clay tile
roofing.
3CS/5S3
10 5773016037 200 2nd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
screen door
added, walkway
altered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
11 5779004023 414 2nd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1931 Building
Minimal
Traditional/Monterey
Revival
Garage doors
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
12 5781018028 1014 2nd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1929 Building French Revival Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival French Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of French Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its steeply-
pitched gable roof, stucco wall
cladding, prominent chimneys,
and large entry tower.
3S/3CS/5S3
13 5789012029 1919 2nd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival C.P. Cassidy Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
gable roof capped with clay tile
roofing, stucco wall cladding,
enclosed entry patio, and wood
casement windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
14 5790006029 1936 2nd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
Some side
windows
replaced, pavers
added to
driveway
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its irregular
massing and asymmetrical
façade, stucco wall cladding,
arched entrance vestibule, and
steeply-pitched roof with rolled,
flared eaves,
3CS/5S3
15 5773016027 221 3rd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman
Some side
windows
replaced,
awnings added,
side AC unit
added, security
door added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
16 5779019025 720 3rd Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
3
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
17 5781020035 1021 4th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Vernacular D.C. Christie Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
18 5781020021 1125 4th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1922 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Primary door
replaced,
balcony rail
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
19 5780002012 1426 4th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1915 Building Craftsman
Early porch
enclosure with
windows, carport
trellis added at
side
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
20 5780008015 1221 6th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
awnings added
or replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its irregular
massing and asymmetrical
façade, steeply-pitched roof with
rolled eaves, stucco wall
cladding, and grouped multi-light
casement windows.
3CS/5S3
21 5780009021 1415 6th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1922 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
screen door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
22 5791017002 1732 6th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman Re-clad with
stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
23 5791020017 2108 6th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1914 Building Craftsman
Primary façade
addition that
likely dates to
period of
significance,
brick porch piers
and concrete
porch likely done
at the same time
as addition
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
24 5780016024 1133 8th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1916 Building Craftsman Some windows
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
25 5780016044 1009 8th Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1933 Building Craftsman
Concrete block
and latticework
added to
foundation,
perimeter entry
pillars and hedge
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
26 5773018026 20 Alta St Single-Family
Residence 1923 Building Craftsman Primary door
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
4
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
27 5773018024 26 Alta St Single-Family
Residence 1920 Building Craftsman
Chimney
stuccoed, AC
unit added to
side
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
28 5773017031 118 Alta St Single-Family
Residence 1924 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations; some
side windows
boarded up
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
29 5773017030 120 Alta St Single-Family
Residence 1924 Building Craftsman Window
replaced in gable
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
30 5783004079 939 Arcadia Ave Multi-Family
Residence The Carousel 1961 Building Mid-Century Modern Michael T. Vallone Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century
Modern, Mimetic
This multi-family courtyard
apartment is significant as an
excellent example of Mimetic
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, specifically its central
main entrance shaped to
resemble a carousel.
3CS/5S3
31 5778006010 1020 Baldwin Ave S Bowling Alley Bowling Square
Lanes 1960 Building Mid-Century Modern
No major
alterations;
awning added,
signage altered
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
This commercial building is significant
as a 1960s bowling alley along a major
commercial thoroughfare in Arcadia. Its
prominent street frontage along Baldwin
Avenue, further enhanced by its large
stanchion sign meant to attract
passersby, is exemplary of auto-centric
commercial development during the
postwar period. It is the only example of
this property type in the city.
3CS/5S3
32 5784001001 1424 Baldwin Ave S Religious Building Arcadia Lutheran
Church
Serbian Orthodox
Church of Christ
Our Savior
1939 Building Exotic Revival
Additions/alterati
ons related to
conversion to
Serbian
Orthodox church
are significant in
their own right.
No obvious post-
1966 alterations.
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Institutional
Development, 1946-
1970
This religious property is significant as
the founding location of the Serbian
Orthodox Church of Christ Our Savior,
which has occupied the building since
1965. Originally Arcadia Lutheran
Church (1939), upon its conversion the
building became one of the earliest
Serbian Orthodox churches in the area,
and remains one of few Serbian
Orthodox churches in Southern
California.
3CS/5S3
33 5785015027 2006 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Tudor Revival
Some side
windows
replaced, porch
canopy roof
added, low
perimeter
concrete block
wall
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
34 5785015023 2014 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1929 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Some windows
replaced, low
stone walkway
wall added, low
concrete block
perimeter wall
added.
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
35 5787001001 2100 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1932 Building Tudor Revival Sam Ripin (owner)
Rear
addition/garage
attachment (only
partially visible
from primary
façade), some
side windows
replaced, entry
steps/porch rail
replaced,
perimeter hedge
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
5
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
36 5385023020 2125 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence Ancillary Building 1916 Building Vernacular
All windows
replaced, siding
replaced with
newer wood
boards. Façades
likely
reconfigured/entr
ies changed, or
building rotated
on parcel (no
entry visible from
three sides
closest to street)
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Commercial and
Recreational
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s building may have been a
general store and significant as the
earliest extant resource associated with
commercial development in the city (pre-
dating to the establishment of the city's
commercial center further east). Further
research and analysis beyond the scope
of this survey are needed to determine
this property's association with early
commercial development in Arcadia.
7R
37 5787001005 2126 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
screen door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
38 5787011004 2212 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Tudor Revival
Rear addition
(only partially
visible), some
windows
replaced, re-clad
with new
textured stucco,
porch canopy
roof added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
39 5787011005 2218 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
Rear addition
(only partially
visible), driveway
expanded
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
40 5787011011 2322 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Tudor Revival W.N. Penland Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
41 5787012003 2410 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1929 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Garage doors
replaced,
awnings added,
some windows
replaced,
driveway
expanded and
pavers added,
security door
added to upper
story, balcony
rail replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
42 5787012011 2426 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1935 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival A.C. Milliken
No major
alterations;
security window
bars added,
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
43 8587033002 5801 Baldwin Ave S Single-Family
Residence
Multi-Family
Residence 1931 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Some windows
on side replaced,
multi-family
residence
converted into
single-family;
entry not visible
due to
vegetation
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s residence, once a multi-
family property later converted for
single-family use, 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 time
period are increasingly rare, and multi-
family properties are virtually
nonexistent.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This residence is significant as an
excellent example of Spanish
Colonial Revival architecture. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
gable roof capped with clay tile
roofing, stucco wall cladding,
enclosed entry patio, and
projecting balcony.
3CS/5S3
44 5788010054 16 Birchcroft St W Single-Family
Residence 1964 Building Mid-Century Modern James Burton
(owner)
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof, and lack of
applied ornamentation.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
6
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
45 5773020029 130 Bonita St Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations; low
brick porch wall
likely added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
46 5779002028 130 California St Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Craftsman Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
47 5779002027 134 California St Single-Family
Residence 1929 Building Tudor Revival
Security door
added, porch rail
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
48 5779002021 158 California St Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
awnings added,
screen door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
49 5779005001 306 California St Single-Family
Residence 1920 Building Craftsman Re-clad with
stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
50 5784001021 603 Camino Real Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1932 Building Tudor Revival G.W. Claxton Re-clad with
textured stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
51 5780011019 703 Camino Real Ave E Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building American Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
52 5782016057 27-29 Camino Real Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1923 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
53 5765010015 2116 Canyon Rd Single-Family
Residence 1961 Building Mid-Century Modern John Galbraith No major
alterations
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
Although this property is not
visible from the public right-of-
way, photographic evidence from
a 2015 real estate listing and
permit research indicate this
single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, expressed post-and-
beam construction, low-pitched
roof, wide overhanging eaves,
combined vertical wood and
stucco wall cladding, and floor-to-
ceiling windows. The house was
designed by architect John
Galbraith, a noted Southern
California practitioner who was
well-known for his Mid-Century
Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
Property not
visible from the
public right-of-
way
Individually Eligible Resources
7
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
54 5775011032 201 Colorado Pl Organization
Headquarters
California
Thoroughbred
Breeders
Association
1956 Building Traditional Ranch Shepard & Morgan
No major
alterations;
security door on
side added,
awnings added
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Institutional
Development, 1946-
1970
This institutional building is significant as
the long-term location of the California
Thoroughbred Breeders Association, a
non-profit organization devoted to the
advancement of Thoroughbred breeding
and racing in California. The
association, which was founded in 1937
adjacent to Santa Anita Park,
exemplifies Arcadia’s importance in the
history of horse racing in Southern
California.
3CS/5S3
55 5775011002 275 Colorado Pl Multi-Family
Residence The Village 1953 Building Mid-Century Modern
Some windows
replaced, some
doors replaced,
security doors
added
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Residential
Development, 1946-
1970
The Village is significant as an excellent
and unusual example of a postwar multi-
family residential complex of individual
rental units connected by carports. The
low-scale apartment complex, which
also features a community building and
swimming pool, is the only example of
its type in Arcadia.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This multi-family residential
complex is significant as an
excellent example of Mid-Century
Modern architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its grouped aluminum
windows, lack of ornamentation,
and butterfly roofs with broad
eaves.
3CS/5S3
56 5775011016 226 Colorado St W Religious Building
Santa Anita
Church of
Religious
Science
1959 Building Mid-Century Modern Steed Bros.
Construction Co.
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This church is significant as an
excellent example of Mid-Century
Modern architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its A-frame roof and
expressive full-height round bay.
3S/3CS/5S3
57 5779005023 329 Diamond St Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
security door
added, one side
window boarded
up with AC unit
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
58 5769027027 1019 Don Pablo Dr Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Monterey Revival
No major
alterations;
hedge added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Monterey Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Monterey Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its stucco wall
cladding, full-width balcony, multi-
light double hung windows, and
low-pitched hipped and gable roof
capped with clay tile roofing.
3S/3CS/5S3
59 5782002031 50 Duarte Rd W Fraternal Lodge
Arcadia Lodge
No. 547 F.& A.
M.
1965 Building Mid-Century Modern Marion T. Varner &
Associates
No major
alterations; some
signage altered
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Institutional
Development, 1946-
1970
This 1960s fraternal lodge is significant
for its association with the increase in
institutional services to serve Arcadia’s
growing population during the postwar
period. It is also significant as the long-
term location of Arcadia Lodge No. 547
F. & A.M., a Masonic lodge in
continuous operation here since 1965.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This fraternal lodge is significant
as an excellent example of Mid-
Century Modern architecture. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its horizontal massing,
flat roof, patterned concrete block
wall cladding, and projecting
metal-clad volume that extends
above the roofline across the
center of the building.
3S/3CS/5S3
60 5782002027 66 Duarte Rd W Religious Building Lutheran Church
of the Cross 1964 Building Mid-Century Modern John Galbraith Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This church is significant as an
excellent example of Mid-Century
Modern architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its A-frame roof,
textured concrete wall cladding,
and lack of applied
ornamentation. The building was
designed by John Galbraith, a
noted Southern California
architect who was well-known for
his Mid-Century Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
61 5781006047 120 Duarte Rd E Walk-up Food Stand Taco Lita Taco Lita 1967 Building Mid-Century Modern David Underwood Appears to be
unaltered
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
This 1960s restaurant building is
significant as the long-time location of
Taco Lita. Founded in 1955 in Pomona,
California, the Taco Lita restaurant chain
operated from multiple locations across
Southern California in the postwar
period. Taco Lita No. 15 was
constructed in Arcadia in 1967 and is
the last known Taco Lita restaurant in
operation. Taco Lita exemplifies the
distinct type of historic businesses
established on Arcadia’s major
thoroughfares during the postwar period.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
8
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
62 5784021904 360 Duarte Rd W Educational Building Holly Avenue
School
Holly Avenue
Elementary School 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival J.F. Kabler
Some windows
replaced,
concrete ramp
added to side of
entry steps
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Institutional
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s elementary school building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s early development patterns; it
exemplifies the expansion of civic and
infrastructure improvements as the city’s
population grew in the first decades of
the 20th century. It is one of few
surviving institutional properties in
Arcadia associated with this period of
development, and the second oldest
extant school property in the city. Its
retrofit and additions that occurred in
1936 were funded by the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) and are
reflective of federally-funded civic
infrastructure improvements
implemented to serve the city's growing
population in the 1930s. This evaluation
pertains to the larger, western building
fronting on Duarte and does not include
the smaller 1936 building to the east, or
other buildings added to the campus at
a later date.
3CS/5S3
63 5784021904 360 Duarte Rd W Educational Building Holly Avenue
School
Holly Avenue
Elementary School 1936 Building Streamline Moderne Some windows
replaced
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Institutional
Development, 1936-
1945
This 1930s elementary school building is
significant for its association with Works
Progress Administration (WPA) civic and
infrastructure improvements during the
Great Depression. Depression-era
federal work relief programs like the
WPA were socioeconomically significant
on a national level, providing jobs to the
unemployed and producing distinctive
structures and landscapes benefiting
local communities. The building is one of
few institutional resources in the city
associated with this period of
development and with federal work relief
programs. This evaluation pertains to
the smaller, eastern building fronting on
Duarte and does not include the larger
1927 building to the west, or other
buildings added to the campus at a later
date.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Streamline Moderne
This Holly Avenue Elementary
School building is an excellent
example of Streamline Moderne
institutional architecture. The
building's distinctive architectural
features include its flat roof (with
parapet), smooth stucco cladding,
curvilinear wall surfaces, and
entry canopy with "speedlines."
This evaluation pertains to the
smaller, eastern building fronting
on Duarte and does not include
the larger 1927 building to the
west, or other buildings added to
the campus at a later date.
3S/3CS/5S3
64 5784007021 400 Duarte Rd W Religious Building Church of the
Good Shepherd 1946-1957 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
signage added
and altered
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This church is significant as an
excellent example of Tudor
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its steeply-pitched gable
roof, stucco wall cladding (with
half timbering in various
locations), and grouped leaded
glass casement windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
65 5784006009 512 Duarte Rd W Religious Building Single-Family
Residence 1919 Building American
Foursquare
Side connected
to church with
upper story
walkway (not
fully visible from
primary façade
due to porte
cochere), entry
added at upper
story at this
walkway
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s building, once a single-family
residence and now part of a church
campus, 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 time
period are increasingly rare.
5S3
Building located
near the rear of
Our Savior
Lutheran Church
property
66 5784003041 612 Duarte Rd W Commercial Building 1965 Building Brutalist William J. Fleming Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Modern,
Brutalist
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Brutalist architecture.
It exhibits high quality of design
and distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its modular design
dictated by its external concrete
structure; unpainted, exposed
concrete surfaces; and lack of
ornamentation.
3S/3CS/5S3
67 5783008029 735 Duarte Rd W Commercial Building 1964 Building Late Modern Verge and
Clatworthy
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Modern
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Late Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its modular
design dictated by its continuous
floor-to-ceiling glazing, unrelieved
wall surfaces of glass, and
minimal ornamentation.
3S/3CS/5S3
68 5783002013 901 Duarte Rd W Single-Family
Residence 1921 Building Craftsman
Awning added,
AC unit added to
primary façade,
porch partially
enclosed during
period of
significance,
perimeter hedge
and fence added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
9
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
69 5779010030 118 El Dorado St Single-Family
Residence 1924 Building Craftsman
Primary door
replaced, AC
unit added at
front window,
chimney altered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
70 8509003007 1110 El Norte Ave Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
71 5778005012 516 Fairview Ave Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations; AC
unit added to
side window
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
72 5769012016 979 Fallen Leaf Dr Single-family
Residence 1947 Building Contemporary
Ranch
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Contemporary
Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Contemporary Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, low-pitched hipped roof
with wide overhanging eaves, and
combined Roman brick and
stucco wall cladding.
3S/3CS/5S3
73 5779012018 54 Fano St Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Craftsman
Some side
windows
replaced, AC
unit added to
side window,
primary door
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
74 5779010008 133 Fano St Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Craftsman
Security door
added, brick
cladding possibly
added, entry
step rails added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
75 5772003010 20 Floral Ave E Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
awnings added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
76 5787012027 2431 Florence Ave Single-Family
Residence 1932 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Cartwright +
Huffman Ltd.
Primary door
replaced,
skylight added,
some windows
on side replaced,
perimeter fence
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
77 5787013009 2506 Florence Ave Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
porch/entry step
railing replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
10
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
78 5770020017 291 Foothill Blvd W Single-Family
Residence
Canary Cottage,
Twin Oaks
Clara Baldwin
Residence 1907 Building Craftsman Elmer Grey
No major
alterations;
balcony railings
replaced,
perimeter fence
added
Arcadia's Early
Development:
The Baldwin Era,
1875-1909
Early Residential
Development, 1875-
1909
This turn of the century single-family
residence is significant for its
association with Arcadia’s earliest
patterns of residential development and
is reflective of the community’s
subdivision efforts leading up to and
shortly following its incorporation as a
city. It is one of very few surviving
properties in the city associated with this
period of development.
Arcadia's Early
Development:
The Baldwin Era,
1875-1909
Early
Residential
Development,
1875-1909
This property is
significant for its
association with
Clara Baldwin, an
individual of great
importance to the
history of Arcadia. It
was constructed in
1907 as Clara
Baldwin’s residence,
and she lived there
until her death in
1929. Her family
(headed by her
father E.J. “Lucky”
Baldwin) was the
driving force in the
founding and
development of the
city.
Architecture and
Engineering
Arts and Crafts
Movement Craftsman
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent and
early example of Craftsman
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its gable roof
with open eaves, exposed rafters,
and knee brackets; wood shingle
wall cladding; multi-light
casement windows; and natural
stone foundation. The house was
designed by master Pasadena-
based architect Elmer Grey, who
was renowned for his Arts and
Crafts and Period Revival
designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
79 5779018012 220 Genoa St Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Re-clad with
textured stucco,
metal porch
awning added,
side window
awnings added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
80 5766009007 58 Grandview Ave W Single-Family
Residence
Ancillary Building
and Stone Wall 1901 Building Vernacular
Large two-story
addition at side
and rear;
windows
replaced.
Arcadia's Early
Development:
The Baldwin Era,
1875-1909
Early Residential
Development, 1875-
1909
This turn-of-the-century residential
ancillary building is significant for its
association with Arcadia’s earliest
patterns of residential development and
is reflective of the community’s
subdivision efforts leading up to and
shortly following its incorporation as a
city. It is one of very few surviving
properties in the city associated with this
period of development. The building and
a stone wall partially surrounding the
building was once part of a larger estate;
the single-family residence to which they
belonged has been demolished.
3CS/5S3
81 5769011025 875 Hampton Rd Single-family
Residence 1951 Building Traditional Ranch owner (Leo M.
Meeker)
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Traditional Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of custom Traditional
Ranch architecture with Tudor
Revival elements. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
orientation, asymmetrical
massing, combined brick and
wood shingle wall cladding, and
prominent brick chimney.
3S/3CS/5S3
82 5769013029 995 Hampton Rd Single-Family
Residence 1941 Building
American Colonial
Revival, Monterey
Revival
Roland Coate
No major
alterations;
garage doors
replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival American Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of American Colonial
Revival architecture with
Monterey Revival elements. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its simple two-story
rectangular form, hipped roof, and
brick wall cladding. The building
was designed by architect Roland
Coate, a noted regional
practitioner who was well-known
for his Period Revival designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
83 5771023013 1220 Highland Oaks Dr Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1963 Building Mid-Century Modern Harold Bissner Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof, downturned
eave at primary entry, and
aluminum ribbon windows. The
house was designed by Harold
Bissner, a noted Pasadena-based
architect who was well-known for
his Mid-Century Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
84 5771013002 1501 Highland Oaks Dr Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1950 Building Hacienda Ranch Richard J. Patek Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Traditional Ranch,
Hacienda Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Hacienda Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, low-pitched gable roof
with clay tile roofing, slumpstone
wall cladding (made to resemble
adobe), and full-width recessed
porch.
3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
11
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
85 5773012001 7 Huntington Dr E Restaurant Van de Kamp's Denny's 1967 Building Mid-Century Modern Harold Bissner,
Harold Zook
All windows
replaced,
primary door
replaced,
signage altered,
windmill not
operable
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
This restaurant building is significant as
the former location of Van de Kamp's, a
Southern California institution for much
of the 20th century. Van de Kamp's
iconic windmill, which sits atop the
building's roof, is the last one remaining
in Southern California. The coffee shop
(which now houses a Denny's)
exemplifies the distinct type of historic
businesses established on U.S. Route
66 during the postwar period.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism
Mid-Century
Modern,
Googie/Mimetic
This restaurant building is
significant as an excellent
example of Googie/Mimetic
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
both styles, including its round
form and folded plate roof, atop
which sits the iconic Van de
Kamp windmill. The building was
designed by architects Harold
Bissner and Harold Zook, noted
Pasadena-based practitioners
who were well-known for their
Mid-Century Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
86 5775025029 27 Huntington Dr W Fraternal Lodge
United States
Balloon School
at Ross Field;
Arcadia Elks
Lodge 2025
Arcadia Elks Lodge
No. 2025 1918 Building Vernacular
1918 Ross Field
Balloon School
Base Operations
Center building
significantly
altered (multiple
additions, new
primary façade,
all windows
replaced, re-clad
with textured
stucco, awnings
added, signage
added, etc.)
leading up to
and part of its
conversion into
the Arcadia Elks
Lodge No. 2025
in 1960
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Institutional
Development, 1946-
1970
This 1960s fraternal lodge is significant
for its association with the increase in
institutional services to serve Arcadia’s
growing population during the postwar
period. It is also significant as the
founding location of Arcadia Elks Lodge
No. 2025, in continuous operation here
since 1960.
5S3
Due to
alterations
related to its
establishment as
the Arcadia Elks
Lodge, the
former Balloon
School building
no longer retains
integrity to
convey its
association with
the Ross Field
Balloon School
under the
Institutional
Development,
1910-1935
theme
87 5775025031 41 Huntington Dr W Restaurant Rod's Grill Rod's Grill 1957 Building Googie
Small glazed
metal entry/foyer
added to primary
façade; original
primary doors
replaced; brick
top on planter
probably added
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
This 1950s restaurant building is
significant as the founding location of
Rod's Grill and Restaurant. Founded
here in 1957 along the historic Route 66,
Rod's has been in continuous operation
ever since and exemplifies the distinct
type of historic businesses established
on Arcadia’s major thoroughfares during
the postwar period.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century
Modern, Googie
This 1950s restaurant is
significant as an excellent
example of Googie architecture. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its tilted roofline with
broad eaves, floor-to-ceiling
aluminum windows, and
expressive neon signage.
3S/3CS/5S3
88 5773013018 60 Huntington Dr E Bank Home Savings
and Loan Chase Bank 1960 Building New Formalist
Millard Sheets;
statues designed
by artist Renzo
Fenci
Primary doors
and entry glazing
replaced, ATMs
added to primary
façade
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Modern, New
Formalist
This bank is significant as an
excellent example of New
Formalist architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its location atop a
podium, extensive use of marble,
and monumental entryway
featuring an intricate tiled mural.
The building was designed by
artist and designer Millard
Sheets, a noted Southern
California practitioner who was
well-known for his New Formalist
bank buildings featuring his large-
scale mosaic murals. Two statues
attached to the primary façade
were designed by local artist
Renzo Fenci.
3S/3CS/5S3
89 5773009070 233 Huntington Dr E Restaurant The Derby 1927 Building Tudor
Revival/Ranch
Exterior chimney
altered--glazed
gas fireplace
added (visible
from exterior and
interior), roll-up
shades added to
windows;
building moved
to this location in
1931 and
became The
Derby in 1938
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Commercial
Development, 1936-
1945
This restaurant is significant as the
founding location of The Derby.
Founded in 1938 by jockey and rider of
the legendary Seabiscuit, George Woolf,
The Derby became a popular local
hangout for jockeys and racetrack
enthusiasts alike. It has been in
continuous operation here ever since its
establishment. The building's prominent
street frontage, expressive neon
signage, and ample onsite parking are
reflective of the automobile-oriented
commercial development that occurred
on U.S. Route 66 (Huntington Drive)
during this time period.
3S/3CS/5S3
90 5773015052 388 Huntington Dr W Civic Building Chamber of
Commerce 1965 Building Mid-Century Modern
No major
alterations; ramp
added
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar Institutional
Development, 1946-
1970
The Chamber of Commerce building is
significant for its association with the
increase in governmental services to
serve Arcadia’s growing population
during the postwar period. Constructed
in 1965, the circular building gave the
Chamber of Commerce a new, modern
location from which to continue the
Arcadia promotion it had spearheaded
since the turn of the century.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its round form,
flat roof with broad eaves, and
floor-to-ceiling aluminum
windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
12
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
91 5778015013 430 Huntington Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1922 Building Craftsman Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
92 5777035016 1009 Huntington Dr W 1007 W.
Huntington Dr.
Multi-Family
Residence 1949 Building Mid-Century Modern Frank C. Howard
One set of
windows
replaced, AC
units added in
some windows,
awnings added
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This multi-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture applied to the
courtyard apartment property
type. It exhibits high quality of
design and distinctive features
that are characteristic of the style,
including its low-pitched roof,
stucco wall cladding, and vertical
decorative elements extending
from the bottom of the eaves to
the first floor.
3CS/5S3
93 5783007018 1014 Huntington Dr W Multi-Family
Residence 1962 Building Mid-Century Modern B.A. Berkus Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This multi-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its flat roof,
combination stucco and stone
wall cladding, and distinctive A-
shaped fenestration pattern along
its primary elevation.
3S/3CS/5S3
94 5775025901 33-37 Huntington Dr W Commercial Building Bekin's Van &
Storage 1949 Building Late Moderne
Some windows
replaced, door
replaced, canopy
replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Moderne
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Late Moderne
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its flat roof,
smooth stucco wall cladding, and
fixed metal windows.
5S3
95 5773012013 51-53 Huntington Dr E Commercial Building Arcadia Journal 1930 Building Art Deco Don S. Ely Some windows
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Commercial and
Recreational
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s commercial building is
significant for its association with the
expansion of development outside
Arcadia’s original commercial center as
the city expanded westward. It is one of
very few surviving commercial
properties in the city associated with this
period of development. This building
originally housed the Arcadia Journal,
one of the city's first newspaper
companies.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Art Deco
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Art Deco architecture.
It exhibits high quality of design
and distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its flat roof, smooth
stucco wall cladding, geometric
and floral motifs, and verticality
emphasized by its corner tower
entry.
3S/3CS/5S3
96 5773004015 142 La Porte St Single-Family
Residence 1924 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
97 5772018007 224 Laurel Ave Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Wall cladding
replaced with
new texture
stucco, awnings
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1936
Residential
Development, 1910-
1936
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
98 5772018005 230 Laurel Ave Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Wall cladding
replaced with
new texture
stucco, pergola
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1937
Residential
Development, 1910-
1937
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
99 5772018004 232 Laurel Ave Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival Awning added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1938
Residential
Development, 1910-
1938
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
13
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
100 5772018003 234 Laurel Ave Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1939
Residential
Development, 1910-
1939
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
101 5789018057 2320 Lee Ave Single-Family
Residence 1963 Building Mid-Century Modern Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture with Hollywood
Regency elements. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its horizontal massing,
flat roof, stucco and Roman brick
wall cladding, and geometric
metal screens at its primary
elevation.
3S/3CS/5S3
102 5785013042 402 Lemon Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Tudor Revival
Garage door
replaced,
walkway altered,
entry pillars/gate
added, perimeter
hedge added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
103 5789021031 41 Live Oak Ave E Bank Pacific Savings
and Loan Citibank 1964 Building New Formalist
ATM and ATM
shelter added to
primary façade
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Modern, New
Formalist
This bank is significant as an
excellent example of New
Formalist architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its location atop a
podium, and its monumental
entrance marked by simple,
symmetrically arranged pillars
that extend above the roofline.
3S/3CS/5S3
104 8573023001 74 Live Oak Ave E Walk-up Food Stand Taco Treat 1950 Building Mid-Century Modern Appears to be
unaltered
Post-World War II
Development,
1946-1970
Postwar
Commercial
Development, 1946-
1970
Taco Treat is significant as a 1950s
walk-up food stand along a major
commercial thoroughfare in Arcadia. Its
prominent street frontage, further
enhanced by its expressive pole sign
meant to attract passersby, is exemplary
of auto-centric commercial development
during the postwar period. It is one of
few examples of the type in the city.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This 1950s walk-up food stand is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its flat roof
with broad eaves, smooth stucco
wall cladding, floor-to-ceiling
aluminum windows, and
expressive neon pole sign.
3S/3CS/5S3
105 5788003047 55 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Tudor Revival W.J. Gray
Metal porch
canopy added,
security door
added
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its
asymmetrical façade, steeply-
pitched gable roof, stucco wall
cladding featuring half timbering,
and multi-light casement
windows.
5S3
106 5788004049 141 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1916 Building Craftsman Primary door
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
107 5785015010 603 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Tudor Revival W.F. Upson (owner)
One side window
replaced,
awnings added,
walkway altered
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its
asymmetrical façade, steeply-
pitched roof, and stucco wall
cladding featuring half timbering.
5S3
108 5383021039 719 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1920 Building Craftsman
Some windows
replaced,
synthetic
cladding added,
rear addition
(early)
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
14
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
109 5385023017 734 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations; AC
units added to
primary façade
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare. This property may also
be significant for its association with
early chicken ranching operations in the
area (an ancillary building at the rear of
the lot may be a converted chicken
barn). However, additional research and
analysis beyond the scope of this survey
would be required to confirm this
association.
5S3
110 5383021037 737 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Tudor Revival
Primary door
replaced,
awnings added,
wood clapboard
added to primary
façade, possible
early rear two-
story addition
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare. This property may also
be significant for its association with
early chicken ranching operations in the
area (an ancillary building at the rear of
the lot may be a converted chicken
barn). However, additional research and
analysis beyond the scope of this survey
would be required to confirm this
association.
5S3
111 5383021036 741 Longden Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Craftsman
Side addition
(early), perimeter
fence added,
pergola carport
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare. This property may also
be significant for its association with
early chicken ranching operations in the
area (an ancillary building at the rear of
the lot appears to be a chicken barn).
However, additional research and
analysis beyond the scope of this survey
would be required to confirm this
association.
5S3
112 5787021900 2601 Longley Wy Educational Building Longley Way
School
Longley Way
Elementary School 1951 Building Mid-Century Modern D.C. Christie
Some windows
replaced, new
buildings
(permanent and
temporary)
added to
campus,
perimeter fence
added or
replaced,
signage added
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
Longley Way Elementary School
is significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
institutional architecture; it
embodies a postwar design
philosophy known as "building for
learning," wherein public school
campuses were designed to give
students ample access to natural
light and the outdoors. The
school’s distinctive planning
features include its arrangement
of one-story classroom buildings
facing onto landscaped
courtyards and connected by
covered walkways. Architectural
features of the original campus
buildings include flat roofs with
angled parapet walls at their long
ends and grouped metal awning
windows. This evaluation pertains
to the three original classroom
buildings only; it does not include
later school buildings and
hardscape features.
3CS/5S3
113 8586007008 2801 Longley Wy Single-Family
Residence 1951 Building Mid-Century Modern Syd Carmine Some windows
replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, butterfly roof with broad
eaves, and lack of ornamentation.
3CS/5S3
114 5771012018 1520 Marendale Ln Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1928 Building Monterey Revival Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Monterey Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Monterey Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its low-pitched
gable roof with open eaves and
exposed rafters, clay tile roofing,
stucco wall cladding, full-width
balcony, and multi-light double
hung windows with shutters.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
15
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
115 8509007017 1224 Mayflower Ave Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Tudor Revival
Some windows
replaced, hedge
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
116 5773001004 15 Newman Ave E Single-Family
Residence 1923 Building Craftsman
All windows
replaced,
primary door
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
117 5773001016 26 Newman Ave E Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Some windows
on side replaced,
patio rail added,
detached garage
converted into
residence
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
118 5773001036 50 Newman Ave E Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman
Re-stuccoed,
screen door
added, chimney
altered, concrete
block wall added
at side near
primary façade,
entry steps
altered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
119 5782018014 45 Norman Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations; low
patio wall added,
landscape
altered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
120 5785005013 217 Norman Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1938 Building Traditional Ranch
Garage door
replaced,
driveway
expanded
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Traditional Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Traditional Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
orientation, asymmetrical
composition, gable roof featuring
open eaves with exposed rafters,
multi-light wood windows with
shutters, and an attached garage.
5S3
121 5785008020 438 Norman Ave W Single-family
Residence
Ross Field Balloon
School officer's
quarters building
1918 (circa)Building Vernacular
Appears to be
unaltered;
moved from
original location
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Institutional
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1910s building is significant for its
association with Ross Field Balloon
School, a military facility where men
were trained to use hydrogen balloons
to observe enemy positions and
movements during World War I. Ross
Field was located on the current Arcadia
County Park site, and military buildings
and barracks were constructed along
Huntington Drive. The building, originally
used as an officer's quarters, was
moved from Ross Field to its current
location at the rear of a private
residence.
5S3
Building located
at the rear of the
lot behind a
single-family
residence
122 5785001004 659 Norman Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1935 Building Tudor Revival M.A. Yoder
Rear upper story
addition (only
partially visible
from street),
some windows
on side replaced,
re-clad with
textured stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
123 5771020001 1148 Oakwood Dr Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1925 Building Tudor Revival Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its irregular
massing and asymmetrical
façade, steeply-pitched gable and
hipped roof, stucco wall cladding,
and grouped multi-light casement
windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
16
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
124 5771017008 1203 Oakwood Dr Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1949 Building Mid-Century Modern Richard Neutra Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof, and inward-
facing orientation. The house was
designed by master architect
Richard Neutra, who was
renowned for his Modern designs
and had an immense influence on
architecture in Southern
California.
3S/3CS/5S3
125 5770002008 100 Orange Grove Ave W Single-Family
Residence
Mirman
Residence
Santa Anita Oaks
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1957 Building Mid-Century Modern Buff, Straub, and
Hensman
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof, expressed
post-and-beam construction, and
inward-facing orientation. The
house was designed by Buff,
Straub, and Hensman, a noted
Southern California architecture
firm well-known for its Mid-
Century Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
126 5769002020 1000 Orange Grove Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1953 Building Mid-Century Modern Frederick J.
Zimowski
No major
alterations;
HVAC system
added on roof
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof,
scored/patterned concrete wall
cladding, and inward-facing
orientation.
3S/3CS/5S3
127 5769001031 1150 Orange Grove Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Hacienda Ranch Raymond Lewis and
J.R. Vore Unknown
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Residential
Development, 1936-
1945
This single-family residence appears to
be significant for its association with a
once larger residential estate. However,
the property is not fully visible from the
public right-of-way and therefore could
not be evaluated.
7R
Property not
visible from the
public right-of-
way
128 5769001032 1160 Orange Grove Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Hacienda Ranch Raymond Lewis and
J.R. Vore Unknown
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Residential
Development, 1936-
1945
This single-family residence appears to
be significant for its association with a
once larger residential estate. However,
the property is not fully visible from the
public right-of-way and therefore could
not be evaluated.
7R
Property not
visible from the
public right-of-
way
129 5787018012 248 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1951 Building Mid-Century Modern F.E. Voorhees Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Contemporary
Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Contemporary Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat and tilted roof with
rock roofing, combination Roman
brick and stucco cladding, and
integrated carport.
3S/3CS/5S3
130 5787007012 439 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1924 Building Craftsman Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
131 5787007008 461 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1929 Building Craftsman
No major
alterations;
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
132 5787008006 475 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1970 Building Mid-Century Modern Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, expressed post-and-
beam construction, flat roof, and
expressive concrete sculptural
reliefs.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
17
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
133 5787008005 481 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Tudor Revival C.B. Faulkner
Some side
windows
replaced
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
134 5787013035 516 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1933 Building Tudor Revival Lincoln Construction
Co.
Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
135 5787013042 518 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1930 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
security door
added, AC unit
added to side
window
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
136 5787012005 620 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Re-clad with new
textured stucco,
awnings added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
137 5787011016 623 Palm Dr W Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Re-clad with new
textured stucco
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
138 5766026029 41 Perkins Dr Single-Family
Residence 1925 Building Craftsman
Awnings added,
one side window
replaced,
security door
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering
Arts and Crafts
Movement Craftsman
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Craftsman
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its low-pitched
gable roof with wide overhanging
eaves, exposed rafters, and knee
brackets; wood clapboard siding;
and paired double hung windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
139 5770010003 1225 Rodeo Rd Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita Oaks
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1939 Building American Colonial
Revival Wallace Neff Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival American Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of American Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its symmetrical
massing, shingle cladding, and
multi-light double hung windows
with shutters. The building was
designed by architect Wallace
Neff, a noted regional practitioner
who was well-known for his
Period Revival designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
140 5766017002 1711 Rodeo Rd Single-Family
Residence 1964 Building Mid-Century Modern Buff and Hensman Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, post-and-beam
construction, low-pitched roof with
broad eaves and clerestory
windows in the gable ends, and
inward-facing orientation. The
house was designed by Buff and
Hensman, a noted Southern
California architecture firm well-
known for its Mid-Century Modern
designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
18
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
141 5766016007 1738 Rodeo Rd Single-Family
Residence 1967 Building Mid-Century Modern Carolyn Brink Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, post-and-beam
construction, low-pitched roof with
broad eaves and clerestory
windows in the gable ends, and
inward-facing orientation.
3S/3CS/5S3
142 5775021035 317 Rolyn Pl Commercial Building Relton
Corporation 1966 Building Mid-Century Modern John S. Mill Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This commercial property is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
offset massing, simple geometric
volumes, flat roof, and
combination Roman brick and
stucco wall cladding.
3S/3CS/5S3
143 5773018001 124 Santa Anita Ave S Multi-Family
Residence The Fleeta 1935 Building American Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
concrete block
entry wall added,
AC units added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s multi-family courtyard
apartment 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 time
period are increasingly rare, and multi-
family residences are virtually
nonexistent.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival American Colonial
Revival
This multi-family courtyard
apartment is significant as an
excellent example of American
Colonial Revival architecture. It
exhibits high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its simple building
forms, gable roofs with eave
returns, wood clapboard siding,
and multi-light double hung
windows with shutters.
3S/3CS/5S3
144 5781001001 1504 Santa Anita Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1906 Building Craftsman
Some windows
replaced, one
window opening
added at second
story, re-clad in
shingle siding,
side entry
pergola added
Arcadia's Early
Development:
The Baldwin Era,
1875-1909
Early Residential
Development, 1875-
1909
This turn of the century single-family
residence is significant for its
association with Arcadia’s earliest
patterns of residential development and
is reflective of the community’s
subdivision efforts leading up to and
shortly following its incorporation as a
city. It is one of very few surviving
properties in the city associated with this
period of development.
3S/3CS/5S3
145 5782021034 1739 Santa Anita Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Tudor Revival
Some windows
replaced with
compatible type,
perimeter fence
and hedge
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
146 5789014011 1930 Santa Anita Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1928 Building Tudor Revival Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Tudor Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Tudor Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its irregular
massing and asymmetrical
façade, steeply-pitched gable roof
capped with wood shingle roofing,
stucco wall cladding featuring half
timbering, and grouped multi-light
casement windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
147 5788003012 2129 Santa Anita Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Stratton
Construction Co.
Re-clad with new
textured stucco,
shutters added,
security window
bars added,
some rear
windows
replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its complex massing,
asymmetrical composition, low-
pitched gable roof capped with
clay tile roofing, stucco wall
cladding, and arched entry
arcade.
3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
19
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
148 5789028026 2520 Santa Anita Ave S Single-Family
Residence 1908 Building Craftsman
Rear addition,
dovecote added
to dormer at
primary façade,
partially re-clad
in an unknown
material, brick
cladding added
at entry and
below sill, some
windows
replaced, some
porch posts
replaced, one
side window
opening altered,
hoods added to
side bay
Arcadia's Early
Development:
The Baldwin Era,
1875-1909
Early Residential
Development, 1875-
1909
This turn of the century single-family
residence is significant for its
association with Arcadia’s earliest
patterns of residential development and
is reflective of the community’s
subdivision efforts leading up to and
shortly following its incorporation as a
city. It is one of very few surviving
properties in the city associated with this
period of development.
3S/3CS/5S3
149 5788020029 2607 Santa Anita Ave S Religious Building Prince Erik Hall Single-Family
Residence 1923 Building Mediterranean
Revival
No major
alterations;
windows
boarded up and
AC units added
on side, awning
added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s building, once a single-family
residence and now part of a church
campus, 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 time
period are increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Mediterranean
Revival
This building is significant as an
excellent example of
Mediterranean Revival
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its two-story,
rectangular form, low-pitched
hipped roof, stucco wall cladding,
and accentuated entryway.
3S/3CS/5S3
150 5788020029 2607 Santa Anita Ave S Religious Building
Arcadia
Congregational
Church
1961 Building Mid-Century Modern Orr-Strange-Inslee Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This church is significant as an
excellent example of Mid-Century
Modern architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its low-pitched gable
roof, Roman brick wall cladding,
aluminum clerestory windows,
and lack of ornamentation. The
church was designed by Orr-
Strange-Inslee, a noted Southern
California architecture firm well-
known for its Mid-Century Modern
designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
151 5773011062 120 Santa Clara St E Commercial Building 1940 Building Late Moderne
Some windows
replaced,
primary door
replaced, some
windows
possibly infilled
on side
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II,
1936-1945
Commercial
Development, 1936-
1945
This 1940s commercial building is
significant for its association with
Arcadia’s continued progress and
development during a time when
prosperity and growth were at a
standstill in much of the nation due to
the Great Depression and World War II.
The retail/office building was
constructed a few blocks north of the
city's original commercial center,
reflecting the steady expansion of
commercial development during the
1930s and early 1940s. Intact
commercial properties associated with
this period of Arcadia's development are
extremely rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Late Moderne
This commercial building is
significant as an excellent
example of Late Moderne
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its flat roof
(with parapet), smooth stucco
wall cladding, curved corner
entry, and flat projecting canopy.
3CS/5S3
152 5769015022 841 Singing Wood Dr Single-family
Residence 1955 Building Mid-Century Modern John Galbraith
No major
alterations;
pavers added to
driveway
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, low-pitched roof, vertical
wood wall cladding, grouped
aluminum windows, and
exaggerated rectangular
"chimney" volume that projects
above the roofline. The house
was designed by architect John
Galbraith, a noted Southern
California practitioner who was
well-known for his Mid-Century
Modern designs.
3S/3CS/5S3
153 5769015002 905 Singing Wood Dr Single-family
Residence 1966 Building Mid-Century Modern Some windows
replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof with broad
eaves, combination Roman brick
and stucco cladding, floor-to-
ceiling windows, and lack of
ornamentation.
3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
20
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
154 5769002012 1065 Singing Wood Dr Single-family
Residence 1951 Building Mid-Century Modern Arnold Gnewuch Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, low-pitched shed roof,
ribbon windows, and lack of
ornamentation.
3S/3CS/5S3
155 5775002001 494 Stanford Dr Single-Family
Residence
Colorado Oaks
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1956 Building Contemporary
Ranch
Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Contemporary
Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Contemporary Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, low-pitched gable roof,
and paneled stucco wall cladding.
3S/3CS/5S3
156 5783001016 1122 Sunset Blvd S Single-Family
Residence 1934 Building American Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
perimeter fence
added, circular
driveway added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
157 5787010018 478 Walnut Ave 474 Walnut Ave.Single-Family
Residence 1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Re-clad with new
textured stucco,
awnings added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
158 5771030002 1144 Valencia Wy Single-Family
Residence 1926 Building Tudor Revival
No major
alterations;
awnings added
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
5S3
159 5787010015 498 Walnut Ave Single-Family
Residence 1936 Building Hacienda Ranch W.J. Gray
No major
alterations;
perimeter hedge
added
Architecture and
Engineering Ranch Traditional Ranch,
Hacienda Ranch
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Hacienda Ranch
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its full-width
entry porch, stucco wall cladding,
and low-pitched gable roof
capped with clay tile roofing.
3CS/5S3
160 5765006001 2001 Wilson Ave Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1960 Building Mid-Century Modern B.C. Bertone
Construction
No major
alterations; stair
railing replaced
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its A-frame
roof, stucco wall cladding,
aluminum windows, and large
projecting vertical element in the
gable end of the A-frame.
3S/3CS/5S3
161 5785020058 269 Wistaria Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1967 Building Mid-Century Modern H.H. Pederson Appears to be
unaltered
Architecture and
Engineering Modernism Mid-Century Modern
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. It exhibits high
quality of design and distinctive
features that are characteristic of
the style, including its horizontal
massing, flat roof with broad
eaves, and inward-facing
orientation.
3S/3CS/5S3
162 5771018014 46 Woodland Ave Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1928 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
No major
alterations;
walkway
repaved
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
low-pitched roof capped with clay
tile roofing, and grouped multi-
light casement windows featuring
prominent wood lintels.
3CS/5S3
Individually Eligible Resources
21
APN Number Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description Historic Name Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Architectural Style Architect Builder Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Context 3
(Criterion C)Theme 3 Sub-Theme 3 Significance/Other Information
3 Status Code Notes
163 5787013029 515 Woodruff Ave W Single-Family
Residence 1934 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1930s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
low-pitched gable roof with
molded eaves and clay tile
roofing, arched arcade and entry
tower, enclosed patio, and multi-
light casement windows.
3CS/5S3
164 5771012010 20 Yorkshire Dr E Single-Family
Residence
Santa Anita
Highlands
Residential Historic
District Contributor
1927 Building Spanish Colonial
Revival
Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development, 1910-
1935
This 1920s 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 time period are
increasingly rare.
Architecture and
Engineering Period Revival Spanish Colonial
Revival
This single-family residence is
significant as an excellent
example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture. It exhibits
high quality of design and
distinctive features that are
characteristic of the style,
including its asymmetrical façade,
low-pitched gable roof with
molded eaves and clay tile
roofing, projecting balcony,
enclosed patio, and multi-light
casement windows.
3S/3CS/5S3
Non-Building Resources
1
Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description
Historic
Name
Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Status
Code Notes
1 Colorado Blvd W
Colorado Blvd. from S.
Michillinda Ave. to a
few blocks east of the
fork along Colorado St.
and Colorado Pl.
Street Trees Deodar cedar
trees 1931 Site Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth, 1910-
1935
Institutional
Development,
1910-1935
The Colorado Boulevard Deodar Cedar Trees are
significant for their association with Arcadia's
beautification efforts carried out in conjunction
with the extension of U.S. Route 66 and the 1932
Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The trees were
intended to lure visitors who had come to
Southern California for the Games.
5S3
2 Foothill Blvd E Foothill Blvd. just east
of N. 1st Ave.
Concrete
Bridge 1928 Structure Appears to be
unaltered
Early Subdivision
and Growth, 1910-
1935
Institutional
Development,
1910-1935
This 1920s concrete bridge is significant for its
association with Arcadia’s early development
patterns; it exemplifies the expansion of
infrastructure improvements as the city’s
population grew in the first decades of the 20th
century. The bridge is one of few surviving
institutional resources in the city associated with
this period of development.
5S3
3 Foothill Blvd W
Northwest corner of W.
Foothill Blvd. and N.
Baldwin Ave.
Residential
Remnant
Anoakia
Gatehouse 1915 Structure Re-clad in
textured stucco
Early
Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development,
1910-1935
This gatehouse is
significant for its
association with Anita
Baldwin, an individual of
great importance to the
history of Arcadia. It was
constructed in 1915 as
part of Anita Baldwin’s
Anoakia Estate, where
Baldwin lived until her
death in 1939. Her family
(headed by her father E.
J. “Lucky” Baldwin) was
the driving force in the
founding and
development of the city.
5S3
Non-Building Resources
2
Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description
Historic
Name
Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Status
Code Notes
4 Foothill Blvd W Residential
Remnant
Anoakia
Perimeter Wall 1915 Structure Appears to be
unaltered
Early
Subdivision
and Growth,
1910-1935
Residential
Development,
1910-1935
This perimeter wall is
significant for its
association with Anita
Baldwin, an individual of
great importance to the
history of Arcadia. It was
constructed in 1915 as
part of Anita Baldwin’s
Anoakia Estate, where
Baldwin lived until her
death in 1939. Her family
(headed by her father E.
J. “Lucky” Baldwin) was
the driving force in the
founding and
development of the city.
5S3
5 Grandview Ave E E. Grandview Ave. at
Oak View Ln.
Concrete
Bridge and
Stone
Channel
1939 Structure Appears to be
unaltered
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II, 1936-
1945
Institutional
Development,
1936-1945
This late 1930s concrete bridge and stone
channel are significant for their association with
federal Works Progress Administration (WPA)
infrastructure improvements in Arcadia during the
Great Depression. Depression-era federal work
relief programs like the WPA were
socioeconomically significant on a national level,
providing jobs to the unemployed and producing
distinctive structures and landscapes benefiting
local communities. The bridge and channel are
one of few institutional resources in the city
associated with this period of development and
with federal work relief programs.
3S/3CS/5S
3
6 Huntington Dr W Gilb Museum of
Arcadia Heritage Statue Hugo Reid
Statue 1937 Object
Moved to this
location;
otherwise
unaltered
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II, 1936-
1945
Institutional
Development,
1936-1945
This late 1930s statue is significant for its
association with federal Works Progress
Administration (WPA) civic improvements in
Arcadia during the Great Depression.
Depression-era federal work relief programs like
the WPA were socioeconomically significant on a
national level, providing jobs to the unemployed
and producing distinctive structures and
landscapes benefiting local communities. The
statue, which was designed by artist Preston L.
Prescott and depicts the Hugo Reid family, is one
of few institutional resources in the city
associated with this period of development and
with federal work relief programs.
3S/3CS/5S
3
Non-Building Resources
3
Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description
Historic
Name
Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Status
Code Notes
7 Huntington 27 W 27 W. Huntington Dr.Military
Remnant
United States
Balloon
School at
Ross Field
Retaining Wall 1918 Structure
The retaining
wall itself is
intact, but the
Balloon School
swimming pool
which it originally
surrounded was
infilled to make a
parking lot
Early Subdivision
and Growth, 1910-
1935
Institutional
Development,
1910-1935
This 1910s retaining wall is significant for its
association with Ross Field Balloon School, a
military facility where men were trained to use
hydrogen balloons to observe enemy positions
and movements during World War I. Ross Field
was located on the current Arcadia County Park
site, and military buildings and barracks were
constructed along Huntington Drive. The
mortared stone retaining wall originally shored up
the Balloon School's swimming pool, which was
later infilled to make a parking lot.
5S3
8 Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr. between
S. Michillinda Ave and
S. 5th Ave.
Landscaped
Median
Pacific Electric
Railway
Pasadena Short
Line
1903/1951-
1970 Site
Railway line
paved over and
median installed;
landscape
improvements
carried out in the
1990s
Arcadia's Early
Development: The
Baldwin Era, 1875-
1909
Early
Institutional
Development,
1875-1909
The Huntington Drive Landscaped Median is
significant as the former location of the Pacific
Electric Railway Pasadena Short Line, which ran
along the center of Huntington Drive between
1903 and 1951. The streetcar line played a large
role in shaping the development of Arcadia's
street pattern (particularly at the center of the
city), which is still visible in the layout of
Huntington Drive today. The landscaped median,
which was installed shortly after the dismantling
of the rail line, has gained significance in its own
right as a prominent visual feature along one of
the city's largest automobile corridors.
5S3
9 Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr. between
Campus and where it
curves east
Street Trees Deodar cedar
trees 1931 Site
Some of the
trees have been
removed/replace
d
Early Subdivision
and Growth, 1910-
1935
Institutional
Development,
1910-1935
The Huntington Drive Deodar Cedar Trees are
significant for their association with Arcadia's
beautification efforts carried out in conjunction
with the extension of U.S. Route 66 and the 1932
Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The trees were
intended to lure visitors who had come to
Southern California for the Games.
5S3
Non-Building Resources
4
Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description
Historic
Name
Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Status
Code Notes
10 Santa Anita Ave S 405 S. Santa Anita
Ave.County Park
Santa Anita
Regional
Recreational
Center
Arcadia County
Park 1936-1938 Site
New signage,
park furniture,
and playground
equipment
added, additional
baseball field
constructed at
the southwest
corner of the
park, and tennis
courts expanded
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II, 1936-
1945
Institutional
Development,
1936-1945
Arcadia County Park is significant for its
association with Works Progress Administration
(WPA) civic and infrastructure improvements
during the Great Depression. Depression-era
federal work relief programs like the WPA were
socioeconomically significant on a national level,
providing jobs to the unemployed and producing
distinctive structures and landscapes benefiting
local communities. Originally known as the Santa
Anita Regional Recreational Center, the Arcadia
County Park was constructed on the former Ross
Field Balloon School site; improvements included
the planting of lawn and trees, erecting public
restrooms and benches, and creating ball fields.
The park is one of few institutional resources in
the city associated with this period of
development and with federal work relief
programs.
3S/3CS/5S
3
11 Santa Anita Ave
Santa Anita Ave.
between E. Grandview
Ave. and E. Live Oak
Ave.
Landscaped
Median 1887 (circa)Site
Original
eucalyptus trees
replaced with
deodar cedars
Arcadia's Early
Development: The
Baldwin Era, 1875-
1909
Early
Institutional
Development,
1875-1909
The Santa Anita Avenue Landscaped Median is
significant for its association with Arcadia’s
earliest development patterns and for reflecting
the vision of the city’s founder, E.J. “Lucky”
Baldwin. It is one of few surviving properties in
the city associated with this period of
development. The landscaped median was
originally intended to be the location of a motor
railroad connecting a luxury hotel at the mouth of
Santa Anita Canyon with a Southern Pacific
Railroad depot six miles to the south. Though the
railroad and hotel were never built, the
landscaped median nonetheless remained a
major focal point in the city.
5S3
Non-Building Resources
5
Street Suffix Direction Alternate Address Name or
Description
Historic
Name
Other Name or
Description Year Built
Resource Type
(Building, Site,
District, Object)
Alterations Context 1
(Criterion A)Theme 1 Significance/Other Information 1 Context 2
(Criterion B)Theme 2 Significance/Other
Information 2
Status
Code Notes
12 Sierra Madre Blvd W W. Sierra Madre Blvd.
at La Ramada Ave.
Concrete
Bridge and
Stone
Channel
1939 Structure Appears to be
unaltered
The Final Baldwin
Subdivisions and
World War II, 1936-
1945
Institutional
Development,
1936-1945
This late 1930s concrete bridge and stone
channel are significant for their association with
federal Works Progress Administration (WPA)
infrastructure improvements in Arcadia during the
Great Depression. Depression-era federal work
relief programs like the WPA were
socioeconomically significant on a national level,
providing jobs to the unemployed and producing
distinctive structures and landscapes benefiting
local communities. The bridge and channel are
one of few institutional resources in the city
associated with this period of development and
with federal work relief programs.
3S/3CS/5S
3
This page intentionally left blank.
Historic Context Statement
City of Arcadia
Citywide Historic Context Statement
Prepared for:
City of Arcadia
Development Services, Planning Division
Prepared by:
Pasadena, California
January 11, 2016
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the Survey Area ................................................................................................................. 1
Project Team ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Previous Designations and Surveys .......................................................................................................... 4
II. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 6
Archival Research ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................................................. 6
III. HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 9
Introduction to the Historic Context Statement ....................................................................................... 9
Summary of Contexts and Themes ......................................................................................................... 10
Historical Background: Early History of Arcadia ..................................................................................... 12
Context: Arcadia’s Early Development: The Baldwin Era, 1875‐1909 .................................................... 15
Context: Early Subdivision and Growth, 1910‐1935 ............................................................................... 29
Context: The Final Baldwin Subdivisions and Arcadia During Wartime, 1936‐1945 .............................. 42
Context: Post‐World War II Development, 1946‐1970 ........................................................................... 53
Architectural Styles ................................................................................................................................. 67
Subsequent History: 1971 ‐ Present ....................................................................................................... 87
IV. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 89
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
I. INTRODUCTION
Project Overview and Scope
In July 2015, the City of Arcadia (the City) retained Architectural Resources Group
(ARG) to conduct a citywide historic resources survey and historic context
statement for Arcadia. The scope of this project included a reconnaissance‐level
survey of all properties within Arcadia’s city limits that were constructed up to
1970, which provided a baseline understanding of the city’s built environment
and potential historic resources. Concurrently with the reconnaissance survey,
ARG drafted a citywide historic context statement which places Arcadia’s built
resources within the broader context of the economic, political, social, and
cultural forces that coalesced to shape the city’s development over time. The
information included in the historic context statement will provide field surveyors
with a contextual basis for evaluation of historic resources in Arcadia.
This phase of the project did not include an evaluation of potential historic
resources against federal (National Register of Historic Places), state (California
Register of Historical Resources), and/or local eligibility criteria. An intensive‐level
survey, which would utilize the historic context statement provided herein and
evaluate properties for potential significance and eligibility, may be conducted in
a subsequent phase of work.
Description of the Survey Area
The city of Arcadia is located in the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County,
approximately 18 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. Arcadia is bounded
by the city of Sierra Madre to the north, the cities of El Monte and Temple City to
the south, the city of Monrovia to the east, and the city of Pasadena to the west.
A small area at the northernmost portion of the city abuts the Angeles National
Forest. The area’s topography slopes slightly upward towards the north,
increasingly dramatically at its northern edge at the foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains. Two channelized washes – the Arcadia Wash and the Santa Anita
Wash – run north‐south through the center and eastern parts of the city,
respectively. Arcadia has always been known for its vast array of mature shade
trees, which helps to define its character and appearance; it was designated “Tree
City USA” in 1993. From the mature eucalyptus Arcadia founder Elias Jackson
“Lucky” Baldwin had planted along the wide Santa Anita Avenue median (later
replaced with deodar cedar trees), to the numerous exotic and native varietals at
the Arboretum, to the massive live oaks that characterize the neighborhoods in
the foothills, trees have played a major role in shaping the city’s natural
landscape.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2
Arcadia is typical of a suburban community and largely composed of residentially‐
zoned properties, the majority of which are detached single‐family houses. Multi‐
family residences comprise much less of the housing stock and almost all date to
the postwar period. While single‐family dwellings are concentrated in residential
neighborhoods throughout the city, multi‐family properties are primarily located
on or adjacent to larger corridors. Commercial and institutional buildings are
mostly located along east‐west corridors including Huntington Drive, Foothill
Boulevard, Duarte Road, and Live Oak Avenue, as well as north‐south corridors
such as Baldwin Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue. Arcadia is almost entirely devoid
Figure 1. General
location map of the
Survey Area and
environs (ARG)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3
of industrial development, the exception being a small planned industrial district
in an annexed area south and east of the original city limits.1
Arcadia’s early development occurred in the southern half of the city, where most
properties constructed prior to the mid‐1930s are situated. The city experienced
tremendous growth after World War II, which is evident in the vast amount of
postwar residential neighborhoods, located predominantly north of Huntington
Drive. Arcadia’s earliest commercial district was established near the intersection
of 1st Avenue and Huntington Drive, where a handful of commercial properties
dating to the 1920s and ‘30s remain. Early public and private institutions,
including schools, religious properties, government buildings, and fraternal
organizations were constructed throughout the community; the number of
institutional properties increased substantially after World War II.
The southern half of the city adheres to a regular, rectilinear street grid pattern,
while the northern half is composed of winding streets and cul‐de‐sacs. The
community’s major corridors include Huntington Drive, Foothill Boulevard, Duarte
Road, Baldwin Avenue, Santa Anita Avenue, and Live Oak Avenue. The Interstate
210 Freeway was completed in the 1970s and runs east‐west through the north
half of the city. Prior to the construction of the freeway, Foothill Boulevard and
Huntington Drive were the primary transportation thoroughfares into and out of
the area.
Though a relatively small city, Arcadia contains a vast amount of space dedicated
to public and private recreation. Santa Anita Park, the Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanic Garden, and Arcadia County Park have helped to shape
Arcadia’s reputation as a regional hub for outdoor leisure and recreation. Santa
Anita Park was constructed in 1934 and comprises 304 acres at the center of
Arcadia. The Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden occupies 127
acres of open space, just north and west of Santa Anita Park. Once part of Rancho
Santa Anita, the Arboretum formally opened on January 9, 1955. Arcadia County
Park (also known as Arcadia Community Regional Park) is located on a 52‐acre
parcel southeast of the racetrack and just north of the 147‐acre Santa Anita Golf
Course. Originally known as the Santa Anita Regional Recreational Center, the
county park was created in 1938 under the direction of the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression. The park and adjacent golf
course were built on the site of the Ross Field Balloon School, a military training
school during World War I. The property is currently home to playgrounds, picnic
areas, tennis courts, baseball fields, an outdoor swimming pool, and an
impressive collection of mature trees.
1 Information related to land use patterns was gleaned from the City’s zoning map and from field
observations.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4
Project Team
All phases of this project were conducted by ARG personnel who meet the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural
History and History.2 ARG staff who participated in the project include Katie E.
Horak, Principal; Mary Ringhoff, Associate; and Evanne St. Charles, all
Architectural Historians and Preservation Planners. Additional support was
provided by intern Christina Park.
Previous Designations and Surveys
In 2002, a historic resources survey of Arcadia was completed by Cultural
Resource Management, LLC. At that time, 269 properties were found to be
individually historically significant through survey evaluation (no historic districts
were identified). The 2002 survey findings were not formally adopted by the City
of Arcadia; none of the properties identified were placed on a local register or
historic resources inventory, nor were they nominated or listed in the California
Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.
Two buildings in Arcadia – Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin’s Queen Anne Cottage
and its associated Coach Barn – were individually listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. Both buildings date to the 1880s and are located in the Los
Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden, 301 N. Baldwin Ave. By virtue of
their listing in the National Register, they are also listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources. The Queen Anne Cottage is also California State Historic
Landmark No. 367. Hugo Reid Adobe, also located in the Arboretum, was
designated California State Historic Landmark No. 368 in 1940. The former
Arcadia Santa Fe Depot was designated California Point of Historical Interest No.
33 in 1967; it was reconstructed at the Arboretum in 1970.
Santa Anita Park was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register
in 2006, and has subsequently been listed in the California Register. The park,
which includes the grandstands/clubhouse area, the paddock, race track, stables,
and parking lots, was completed between 1934 and 1938. Its unique Moderne
design with American Colonial Revival elements was created by noted architect
Gordon B. Kaufmann, with its landscape designed by later‐renowned landscape
designer Tommy Tomson. The property was found to be eligible under Criterion A
for its association with the horse racing industry as well as for its use as a
temporary assembly center for Japanese Americans interned during World War II.
2 The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards were developed by the
National Park Service. For further information on the Standards, refer to
http://www.nps.gov/history/local‐law/arch_stnds_9.htm.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5
Anoakia, the former home of Anita Baldwin, daughter of Lucky Baldwin, was
determined eligible for the National Register prior to its demolition and
replacement with a gated residential community in 2000. Only the estate’s
gatehouse and perimeter wall remain.
The Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden was the subject of a
Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment Plan, prepared by Historic Resources
Group, LLC and kornrandolph, Inc. in 2014. The study identified a National
Register and California Register‐eligible Los Angeles County Arboretum and
Botanic Garden Historic District. Sixty resources, including buildings, structures,
landscapes, and landscape features, were found to be contributors to the historic
district. Two periods of significance – 1875‐1936 and 1947‐1978 – were
established to capture the site’s significance as Rancho Santa Anita, the former
estate of E.J. “Lucky” Baldwin, as well as its development as the Arboretum after
World War II.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6
II. METHODOLOGY
To ensure that the methodology described herein incorporated the most up‐to‐
date standards and was rooted in professional best practices, ARG consulted the
following informational materials maintained by the National Park Service (NPS)
and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP):
NRB 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property
Documentation Form
NRB 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP): Writing Historic Contexts
Archival Research
ARG conducted primary and secondary source research in order to inform the
writing of the historic context statement and provide valuable property‐specific
information for the reconnaissance survey. Research included the overview of
pertinent city planning documents (municipal codes and planning reports);
primary resources (historic photographs, maps, building permits); and secondary
sources (newspaper articles, local published histories).
The following collections were consulted:
Collections of the Arcadia Library
Collections of the Gilb Museum of Arcadia Heritage
Collections of the Los Angeles Public Library
ARG’s in‐house library of architectural reference books, journals, and
other materials
Various internet sites and digital archives
City of Arcadia Building Services Division for building and alteration
permits
Historic Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Historic tract maps from the Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey is an essential component of the preparation of a
historic context statement, as it informs the project team about a city’s patterns
of development and major and minor physical components, as well as enables a
street‐by‐street look at all of the city’s resources at once for effective
comparative analysis.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7
Prior to reconnaissance, ARG used the City’s Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) data, supplemented by Los Angeles County Assessor data, to develop a map
that color coded all of the city’s parcels by decade of development. This
“chronology map” helped to identify different development patterns in the
survey area and locate groupings of properties that might be unified by age and
appearance. The map also located all buildings constructed after 1970, which
were not included as part of the survey. During the reconnaissance survey, each
street in the city was driven and a “windshield” inspection was conducted. The
general age of buildings, property types, architectural styles, and levels of
integrity were noted and compared. As part of this phase of work, an evaluation
of individual properties or collections of properties (historic districts) against
federal, state or local criteria was not conducted.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8
Figure 2.
Chronology map
showing phases
of development
color‐coded by
decade (ARG)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9
III. HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Introduction to the Historic Context Statement
Historic and cultural resources cannot be evaluated without first taking into
consideration the historic context(s) with which they are associated. Historic
contexts are defined by the NPS as “broad patterns of development in a
community or its region that may be represented by historic resources.”3 Those
historic contexts that are germane to a particular area of study are identified and
explored in a technical document known as a historic context statement, which
links extant built resources to the key patterns of development that they
represent. As historic context statements establish the analytical framework
through which historic and cultural resources may be evaluated, a well‐developed
context statement is a vital component of any successful survey endeavor.
Context statements are also used to guide future determinations of eligibility and
land use decisions involving potential historic resources.4
While a historic context statement helps to relay the story of a particular
community, it is not intended to be an all‐encompassing history of that
community; rather, its aim is to identify and describe broad historical patterns so
that one may better ascertain how a community’s built environment and cultural
climate came to be. Historic context statements are generally organized by
context and theme: contexts cast the widest net and capture a broad historical
pattern or trend, and within each context are one or more relevant themes that
are represented through extant property types sharing physical and/or
associative characteristics. Accompanying each theme is a list of associated
property types and guidelines for establishing eligibility and assessing integrity
under the theme.
Arcadia possesses a rich and varied past that spans multiple eras of California
history and is associated with contexts and themes that are definitive in the
history of the San Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles County, and Southern California.
The city retains a wide range of properties related to multiple periods of
development. Together, Arcadia’s historic properties create a diverse built
environment.
3 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning Chapter I: Planning the Survey (revised 1985).
4 More information and resources related to historic context statements and their application can
be found on OHP’s web site: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23317.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10
This historic context statement provides a narrative historical overview of
Arcadia’s broad patterns of development and the forces which have helped to
shape the city as it appears today.
Summary of Contexts and Themes
Four contexts have been identified for the future evaluation of historic resources
in Arcadia. The contexts are organized chronologically and capture major patterns
and trends in the city’s development history that are expressed in its extant built
resources. Within each context are one or more themes that provide a focused
discussion related to a particular property type(s). The historic context statement
culminates with a chapter titled Architectural Styles, which helps to identify and
define the architectural styles that are reflected in every phase of Arcadia’s
development and give the city its physical character.
The following contexts and themes are associated with Arcadia’s development
history and extant built resources:
Context: Arcadia’s Early Development: The Baldwin Era, 1875‐1909
The majority of resources that fall under this context are single‐family
residences representing the city’s earliest period of development as a
small farming and ranching community. Other potential resources under
this context are those related to infrastructure and street improvements
that were made in the formation of the new city. The period of
significance under this context includes Arcadia’s earliest extant
resources up to E.J. Baldwin’s death in 1909.
o Theme: Early Residential Development, 1875‐1909
o Theme: Early Institutional Development, 1875‐1909
Context: Early Subdivision and Growth, 1910‐1935
Properties under this context are associated with Arcadia’s development
during the 1910s through the mid‐1930s, a period of accelerated growth
in the southern half of the city, particularly during the Southern California
boom years of the 1920s. The period of significance under this context
begins in 1910, after the death of E.J. Baldwin, and ends in 1935, prior to
the subdivision and development of the last of the Baldwin family lands,
north of Huntington Drive.
o Theme: Residential Development, 1910‐1935
o Theme: Commercial Development, 1910‐1935
o Theme: Institutional Development, 1910‐1935
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11
Context: The Final Baldwin Subdivisions and Arcadia During Wartime,
1936‐1945
Resources under this context are reflective of Arcadia’s continued
progress and development, during a time when prosperity and growth
were at a standstill in much of the country due to the Great Depression
and World War II. Arcadia’s Depression‐era and wartime development
was boosted by a number of factors, including the subdivision of the
remaining tracts of Lucky Baldwin’s land, the popularity of the new Santa
Anita Park and Racetrack, and the establishment of military facilities and
the resulting increase in demand for commercial services. The period of
significance for this context begins in 1936, when the last of Baldwin
family land north of Huntington Drive was sold for development, and
ends in 1945 with the culmination of World War II.
o Theme: Residential Development, 1936‐194
o Theme: Commercial Development, 1936‐1945
o Theme: Institutional Development, 1936‐1945
Context: Post‐World War II Development, 1946‐1970
Properties under this context are reflective of wider trends in Southern
California during the postwar era. As with much of the region, Arcadia
experienced a tremendous increase in population in the years following
World War II, which resulted in the construction of several large‐scale
residential developments north of Huntington Drive, as well as a surge in
commercial and institutional development along major corridors
throughout the city. The period of significance for this context begins in
1946, after the end of World War II, and ends in 1970, when the country
witnessed a series of economic changes that brought about an end to the
postwar era.
o Theme: Postwar Residential Development, 1946‐1970
o Theme: Postwar Commercial Development, 1946‐1970
o Theme: Postwar Institutional Development, 1946‐1970
Architecture and Design, 1875‐1970
This chapter provides an overview of the range of architectural styles that
represent each period of Arcadia’s development. In addition to the array
of Period Revival styles built in the southern half of the city during its
population boom between World War I and II, Arcadia features a
significant concentration of Ranch style residences concentrated in
postwar residential neighborhoods north of Huntington Drive. Modern
styles, such as Art Deco (in its earlier period of development) and Mid‐
Century Modern (in the post‐World War II period) comprise much of the
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12
commercial development that has occurred in Arcadia from the 1920s to
the present.
Historical Background: Early History of Arcadia
Prior to the Spanish colonization of California in the 18th century, the San Gabriel
Valley and its environs were inhabited by the Tongva, a Native American tribe
that occupied much of what is now Los Angeles County, half of Orange County,
and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina.5 The Tongva had
frequent interactions with the groups bordering their territory, including the
Chumash to the north, the Serrano to the east, and the Luiseño and Juaneño to
the south. The group is commonly referred to as the Gabrielino as well as the
Tongva; the name Gabrielino originally referred specifically to the people
affiliated with Mission San Gabriel Arcangel. Today, the name refers to other
adjacent groups as well, some of whom prefer the name Tongva.
The Gabrielino/Tongva used both inland and coastal food resources, living a semi‐
sedentary lifestyle that relied on seasonally available foods and establishing large,
permanent villages near stable water sources. Temporary campsites were used
seasonally for gathering plant foods like acorns, as well as for fishing, harvesting
shellfish, and hunting. The first known permanent settlement in what would
become Arcadia was a Gabrielino/Tongva village known as ‘Ahuupkinga, located
near springs and a natural lake in the area of what is now the Los Angeles County
Arboretum. Like other villages, ‘Ahuupkinga likely housed a year‐round
population of at least 100 people and featured houses and other structures made
of willow poles and tule mats in domed circular configurations.
In 1771, the local Gabrielino/Tongva way of life saw a dramatic change with the
arrival of Spanish missionaries and the founding of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel.
The fourth of California’s 21 Franciscan missions, Mission San Gabriel Arcangel
was originally sited in what is now Montebello, but relocated to what is now San
Gabriel in 1776 after seeing significant damage in a flash flood. As was common
throughout the Spanish mission system, Mission San Gabriel had not just religious
conversion as its goal, but the strengthening of Spanish economic and military
influence in California. It encouraged and coerced the Gabrielino/Tongva to
become neophytes who would convert to Christianity, learn approved agricultural
and ranching techniques, and provide free labor. The effects of mission influence
upon the local native populations were devastating. Gabrielino/Tongva villages
like ‘Ahuupkinga were abandoned as their residents were either relocated to the
mission or killed by epidemics of European diseases against which they had no
5 Alfred L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of California (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1925), 620‐621; William McCawley, The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles
(Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1996), 3.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13
immunity.6 Although most of the local Native Americans were incorporated into
the mission system, some refused to give up their traditional existence and
escaped into the interior regions of California.
Mission San Gabriel’s influence extended far beyond its physical base, as the
Spanish used thousands of acres of the surrounding lands to grow crops and graze
cattle. These agricultural outholdings included the property later known as
Rancho Santa Anita, which once held ‘Ahuupkinga and would eventually house all
or part of the cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Sierra Madre, Pasadena, and San
Marino. While the Arcadia portion of Rancho Santa Anita remained otherwise
undeveloped, it served an important auxiliary role in the operations of Mission
San Gabriel. Its crops fed the mission population and its animals, while its cattle
produced valuable tallow and hides which the Spanish traded for other much‐
needed supplies.
When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, California became a part
of Mexico and large parcels of Spanish lands saw changes in ownership and use.
Land use patterns in Mexican California were predominantly defined by a system
in which the government issued expansive land grants, or ranchos, to prominent,
well‐connected families as a means of encouraging settlement and bolstering
California’s lucrative hide and tallow trade.7 The missions, meanwhile, waned in
influence and were ultimately desecularized and abandoned. A portion of Mission
San Gabriel land was deeded to one of very few Gabrielino/Tongva to receive
land grants: Bartolomea Maria (better known as Victoria Bartolomea and later
6 Carey McWilliams, Southern California: An Island on the Land (Layton: Gibbs Smith, 1946), 32.
7 McWilliams, 38‐39.
Figure 3. Mission San
Gabriel, 1900 (Los
Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14
Victoria Reid), the young widow of mission neophyte Pablo Maria and the
powerful daughter of an influential tribal leader.8
After Pablo Maria’s death from smallpox in 1836, Victoria married a Scottish‐born
trader named Hugo Reid. While marriage between whites and Gabrielino/Tongvas
was not unusual during the Mexican rancho period, Hugo and Victoria’s story has
been particularly compelling; some sources claim Helen Hunt Jackson based her
seminal 1884 novel Ramona on the couple.9 In order to marry Victoria, Reid
applied for Mexican citizenship, converted to Catholicism, and formally requested
permission from the Governor of Alta California for the nuptials.10 He adopted her
four children and soon petitioned the government for the Rancho Santa Anita
land grant, comprising 13,319 acres; Reid prevailed over five other applicants in
part because of his family connections through Victoria.11 His 1841 provisional
title to the land required that he make certain improvements to it, and in
response Reid planted wheat, established a small herd of cattle, and built a three‐
room adobe near the spring‐fed lake that had once attracted Gabrielino/Tongva
to the location. This house still stands in Arcadia today on the grounds of the Los
Angeles County Arboretum, as California Historical Landmark No. 368.12 Reid
gained full title to Rancho Santa Anita in 1845 and his home became known as a
hospitable stop for travelers from far and wide.
Reid only possessed the rancho for a few years; in 1847, he was compelled to sell
the entire property to his friend Henry Dalton for about 20 cents an acre in order
to pay off debts.13 In 1848, the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended
the Mexican‐American War and established California as a United States
possession. It also provided for the retention of private lands by their original
Mexican owners, but eager would‐be landowners contested the validity of many
of the valuable land grants, leading to years of litigation and debt. Many of the
larger ranchos were divided into smaller parcels to pay bills and settle legal
disputes. Rancho Santa Anita did not immediately suffer such a fate, but it came
eventually. Dalton sold the land to Joseph A. Rowe in 1854, who sold it to the
8 Pat McAdam and Sandy Snider, Arcadia: Where Ranch and City Meet (Arcadia: Friends of the
Arcadia Public Library, 1981), 13; Andrea Desoto, “Biographies of Notable California Indians: Victoria
(Bartolomea) Reid,” University of California, Irvine, 2006, accessed September 2015,
http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/tcthorne/notablecaliforniaindians/victoriareid.htm.
9 Cecilia Rasmussen, “Their Story Inspired ‘Ramona’,” Los Angeles Times, 5 December 1999.
10 McAdam and Snider, 13.
11 McAdam and Snider, 14.
12 Robert Imboden, DPR Form for California Historical Landmark 368, Hugo Reid Adobe (Long Beach,
CA: Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc., January 2014).
13 Gordon S. Eberly, Arcadia: City of the Santa Anita (Claremont, CA: Saunders Press, 1953), 10. Reid
traveled to northern California hoping to strike it rich in the gold fields (to no avail), and later
published a highly regarded series of letters he originally wrote to the Los Angeles Star about the
disappearing cultures of Los Angeles‐area Native Americans. He died in 1852; Victoria and all of
their children later died of smallpox.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15
partnership of Albert Diblee, William Corbitt and a Mr. Barker.14 After a number
of unprofitable years caused in part by a severe drought, the partners sold a small
(2,000 acre) portion of the ranch to Leonard Rose, and the rest (11,319 acres) to
an ex‐trapper named William Wolfskill. Wolfskill moved into the old Reid adobe
and died only a year later; his son Louis inherited Rancho Santa Anita and did
more subdividing as land prices rose, selling 1,740 acres to Alfred Chapman. In
1872, Wolfskill sold the remaining portion of the rancho, about 8,000 acres, to
Los Angeles merchant Harris Newmark.15 Just three years later, Newmark would
sell the land to an investor who would change the face of Rancho Santa Anita
forever: Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin.
14 Eberly, 12.
15 Eberly, 13‐14; McAdam and Snider, 15.
Figure 4. Hugo Reid
Adobe, ca. 1910. Now
located on the Los
Angeles County
Arboretum and
Botanic Garden site
(Los Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16
Context: Arcadia’s Early Development: The Baldwin
Era, 1875-1909
The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw massive changes in the area that once
held Rancho Santa Anita, most of which were initiated directly or indirectly by
landowner and entrepreneur E.J. “Lucky” Baldwin. Multiple railroads and later a
streetcar line ran through Baldwin’s property, and the townsite of Arcadia was
platted to take advantage of the 1880s influx of visitors and new residents to
Southern California. Arcadia began its long climb to visibility and stability at the
turn of the century, seeing the subdivision of its earliest residential developments
and the slow establishment of commercial and institutional interests. This context
addresses the rare extant built resources that are associated with Arcadia’s late
19th‐early 20th century growth, representing the earliest beginnings of the
community. Accounted for are built resources that were constructed between
1875, when Baldwin acquired the land that would become Arcadia, and 1909, the
year of his death.
Elias Jackson Baldwin was an
Ohio‐born entrepreneur who
immigrated to California with
his young family in 1853. Like
many others, he hoped to make
his fortune out West; unlike
many others, he found great
success. Thanks to wise and
timely investments in ventures
like livestock, San Francisco real
estate, and Comstock Lode
(Virginia City, Nevada) mining
companies, Baldwin was a rich
man by the time he was 40. He
earned the nickname “Lucky”
after leaving on an 1867 world
tour, giving his broker
instructions to sell his shares in
Virginia City’s Hale and Norcross
mine when they reached a price of $800 a foot. The broker was unable to carry
out his order since Baldwin neglected to leave him a key to the safe containing
the shares; by the time Baldwin returned, the shares’ value had soared to $12,000
a foot.16 Baldwin promptly sold them for a tidy profit, and went on to make much
more money (some $5 million) from his Virginia City mining investments through
16 McAdam and Snider, 19; Eberly, 22.
Figure 5. Arcadia
founder Elias Jackson
“Lucky” Baldwin, date
unknown (Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17
the early 1870s. Sometime around 1873, he fulfilled one of his long‐held
ambitions by buying his first thoroughbred race horses.17
In 1875, Baldwin happened upon Harris Newmark’s Rancho Santa Anita property
while in the area researching a potential mine investment. He fell in love with it
immediately, and purchased the property from Newmark for $200,000. According
to the Los Angeles Herald, it was the largest real estate transaction Los Angeles
had ever seen.18 It included the 8,000 acres of the rancho, 432 more acres of
scattered sections of land that included portions of Santa Anita Canyon, and
water rights in the canyon. Later that same year, Baldwin purchased some 6,000
acres of Rancho San Francisquito, adjoining Rancho Santa Anita to the south.19 He
acquired other nearby properties as they came under foreclosure, eventually
amassing nearly 50,000 acres of land within Los Angeles County.20 Baldwin
established his center of operations at the Baldwin Ranch on Rancho Santa Anita,
centered on the area of Arcadia now containing the Los Angeles County
Arboretum.
Baldwin was too busy to
personally manage
development of his new ranch,
entrusting most of that to
others, but happily paid long
visits from his San Francisco
base with his young third wife
Jennie and their daughter
Anita. He added a new wooden
wing and modern plumbing to
the old Reid adobe, and saw
the rapid rise of around 30
buildings, including barns,
stables, storehouses, worker
housing (a boarding house as
well as homes for employees
with families), a school, and separate stables and a private training track for
Baldwin’s prized racehorses.21 A workforce of at least 200 employees, which
included Mexican American, Chinese American, European American, and Native
American individuals, planted acres of orange groves, walnut trees and vineyards;
built reservoirs; dug wells and irrigation systems; and erected miles of fenceline.22
17 Eberly, 23.
18 Eberly, 26.
19 McAdam and Snider, 20.
20 Eberly, 27; McAdam and Snider, 20‐21.
21 McAdam and Snider, 20.
22 Eberly, 28‐29; McAdam and Snider, 20‐21.
Figure 6. Baldwin
family, E.J. Baldwin
just right of center,
ca. 1895 (Los
Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18
By the 1890s, the ranch also included the Santa Anita Store, a blacksmith shop, a
distillery for brandy and sherry, a citrus packing house, and separate “colonies”
for Mexican and Chinese workers.23
Baldwin imported exotic plants and birds (including the now‐iconic peacocks), and
made sure his ranch would be as picturesque as it was profitable. And profitable
it was; by its height at the turn of the twentieth century, the Baldwin Ranch
produced alfalfa, barley, citrus crops, walnuts, wine, cattle, sheep, hogs, dairy
products, poultry, eggs, bricks, and winning thoroughbreds. It employed hundreds
of people, including at least 60 African American horse trainers, stablemen, and
jockeys hired by Baldwin in 1886.24 Construction of buildings continued, and
included a new guest house and coach barn near the adobe. The Queen Anne
Cottage, as it is now known, and the coach barn boasted a flamboyant Queen
Anne design by Albert A. Bennett. The new guest house may have been intended
as a “honeymoon cottage” for Baldwin’s fourth wife, Lillian (Jennie died in 1881),
but the couple had separated by the time of its completion in 1886. The cottage
became a memorial to Jennie, with her stained glass portrait sitting in the front
door. The Queen Anne Cottage and Coach Barn are listed in the National Register
of Historic Places. These properties, the only ones known to be directly associated
with the Baldwin Ranch operation, are located on the grounds of the Arboretum.
Another opportunity for profit presented itself to Lucky Baldwin in the mid‐1880s,
when the Los Angeles & San Gabriel Valley Railroad (LA&SGVRR) planned to
construct its right‐of‐way through the Baldwin Ranch. The new rail line came after
23 Elizabeth Wiegan Cleminson, sketch map of the Baldwin Ranch 1889‐1890, in McAdam and
Snider, 28.
24 McAdam and Snider, 39.
Figure 7. Santa Anita
Ranch employees,
1886. Baldwin
employed hundreds
of workers at his
ranch, including
stable men, horse
trainer, farmers, and
fruit packers (Los
Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19
the Southern Pacific Railroad’s stronghold over Southern California was finally
broken, letting major rail companies like the Santa Fe Railway emerge as a
competitor, and allowing smaller regional companies like the LA&SGVRR to
establish service. The LA&SGVRR planned to construct not only a rail line through
the Baldwin Ranch, but two stations as well, all part of its larger route that
connected Los Angeles with Mud Springs (now San Dimas) and served the whole
San Gabriel Valley.25
The Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific embarked on a fare war, substantially
reducing the cost of train fare and suddenly making it possible for droves of
tourists and settlers from the Midwest and elsewhere to travel to Southern
California.26 This, in turn, ignited a real estate boom that was predicated on
speculation, as investors and developers seized upon the mass arrival of
newcomers and hastily subdivided new towns along railroad corridors. California
historian Carey McWilliams sardonically remarked that these towns “appeared
like scenes conjured up by Aladdin’s map – out of the desert, in the river wash, or
a mud flat, upon a barren slope or hillside” – anywhere that investors perceived
even the smallest kernel of demand.27 Among the new townsites established in
this boom period were Sierra Madre and Monrovia, both platted on tracts
Baldwin sold to others.
Not one to miss out on this kind of opportunity (and finding himself in need of
funds after a major stock loss), Baldwin decided to create his own town and
subdivided 3,000 acres of his land into the Santa Anita Tract in 1883. He ensured
that one of the LA&SGRR’s new stations would be located within his new townsite
of Baldwin, subdivided as town lots, “villa sites,” and larger 30‐acre farm
parcels.28 The LA&SGVRR reached Baldwin in 1886, but despite daily newspaper
advertisements, the new townsite faltered in comparison to the burgeoning city
of Monrovia. Baldwin deeded the remaining acreage of the Santa Anita Tract to
his ranch manager Hiram Unruh, who subdivided it and began selling lots under
the name of the Santa Anita Tract; advertisements boasted of the townsite’s
ample water supply, broad graded streets (many already planted with eucalyptus
and pepper trees), and perfect climate.29 By 1887, the townsite was being
referred to as Arcadia, and it proved far more successful than its predecessor.30 In
that same year, the LA&SGVRR was consolidated into the California Central
Railway Company (CCRRy), owned by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
25 Sandra Lee Snider, Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin: California Visionary (Los Angeles: The Stairwell
Group, 1987), 14‐15; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_San_Gabriel_Valley_Railroad,
accessed September 2015.
26 George L. Henderson, California and the Fictions of Capital (New York: Oxford University Press,
1999), 154.
27 McWilliams, 120.
28 Snider, 16.
29 Advertisement, Los Angeles Daily Herald 23 January 1887, in Snider, 17.
30 Snider, 18; McAdam and Snider, 42.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20
(AT&SFRy), leading to more traffic through the area. In March of 1887, the Los
Angeles Herald noted, “the city consists of a sign under a huge spreading oak tree,
but in four days about 300 lots have been sold and the surveyors are having hard
work to keep up with the agent, Mr. H.A. Unruh.”31
Like other Southern California cities, Arcadia was established as the Santa Fe’s
affordable fares lured people from across the country, but its initial growth was
slow compared to that of the adjacent Monrovia. Its association with the
infamous Lucky Baldwin seems to have helped in terms of publicity; as historian
Sandra Lee Snider points out, newspaper references as well as the “scope and
occasional flamboyance” of proposed improvements to the town suggest Baldwin
was actively involved in promotion and development, and the popular conception
certainly saw him as its founding father.32 The first rail depot, the Arcadia Depot,
was completed where the CCRRy line crossed First Avenue in June 1887, providing
an anchor to Arcadia’s nascent business district.33 The earliest residences sprang
up in this same area, some built of bricks conveniently produced at the Baldwin
Ranch’s brickyard.
The town was more than primed for rapid growth, especially with the 1888
completion of the narrow‐gauge San Gabriel Valley Rapid Transit Railroad
31 Los Angeles Herald, 30 March 1887, in McAdam and Snider, 42.
32 Snider, 18‐19.
33 This depot was moved to the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds in Pomona in 1969.
Figure 8. Hotel
Oakwood, built at
the corner of First
Avenue and Santa
Clara Street, ca.
1890 (Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
between Monrovia and Los Angeles, known as the “Jack Rabbit Line.”34 But aside
from the 1887 construction of the 35‐room Hotel Oakwood at the corner of First
Avenue and Santa Clara Street, the 1890 completion of the brick Santa Anita
Depot on Baldwin Avenue, and the erection of a few new houses, growth proved
elusive; in 1888 the town had only 150 residents.35 The Southern California boom
of the 1880s saw a quick and general decline in most places as the railroad fare
war ended at the end of the decade and land speculation slowed. McAdam and
Snider further speculate that Arcadia was “oriented more toward a tourist and
small farming economy than to the small businesses and city living that
characterized Monrovia. Arcadia was perhaps more functional as a selling point
for E.J.’s growing number of subdivisions than as an organized town per se.”36
34 McAdam and Snider, 43, 56. This company was taken over by the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1893.
35 The Santa Anita depot was moved about a quarter mile north of its original location in 1970.
36 McAdam and Snider, 43.
Figure 9.
Advertisement for
the sale of Santa
Anita Ranch land,
prior to Arcadia’s
incorporation (Los
Angeles Times, 23
February 1894)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22
E.J.’s growing number of subdivisions included the tracts of Santa Anita Colony,
Colony Addition No. 1, and Colony Addition No. 2, subdivided in 1891 in what is
today the area bounded by Duarte Road, Lower Azusa Road, Baldwin Avenue, and
2nd Avenue.37 These subdivisions comprise most of the southern third of Arcadia,
and contain some of its oldest extant residential properties. Seeing the end of the
land speculation boom and realizing the stagnant nature of the original townsite’s
growth, Baldwin pulled no punches in his advertisements for these new tracts. A
marketing brochure bluntly noted, “The present is a good time to buy land, as the
bottom has been reached.”38
The 1890s proved a difficult decade for Arcadia and Lucky Baldwin. The city saw
little growth and its founder experienced a series of business reversals that led
him close to debt, with a national depression on top of it all. After an unsuccessful
attempt to strike it rich in the Alaskan gold fields, a pneumonia‐ridden Baldwin
retreated to his ranch in 1901 to recuperate. Upon recovering, he rededicated
himself to increasing his still‐large ranch’s productivity, and regaining some of his
lost fortune through the continued subdivision and sale of his land. He also made
the ranch a more permanent home, spending much more time there than in the
preceding years when he traveled frequently between there, the Baldwin Hotel in
San Francisco, and his Tallac resort at Lake Tahoe.
Baldwin seized on a new opportunity when the Pacific Electric Railway announced
in 1902 it would soon begin constructing a streetcar line from Pasadena to
Monrovia as part of its Pasadena Short Line; he forged an agreement with the
company ensuring the route would pass through the nascent community of
Arcadia. Pacific Electric service began in 1903, and just two weeks later, Baldwin
filed a petition for incorporation of Arcadia.39 Many scoffed at the idea, with the
Los Angeles Times noting the area appeared to house far fewer than the required
500 residents for incorporation, with “land adorned by not more than 65
buildings, some of which are barns, stables, and shacks, built of such material as
cast off water pipe, refuse tin, flattened‐out gasoline cans and dilapidated
shingles.”40 Some opponents, notably the Anti‐Saloon League, claimed Baldwin
had no intent of creating a true city, but instead aimed to establish “an American
Monte Carlo, with whose ribaldry, racing, gambling and gaming the county
government would be powerless to interfere.”41
Baldwin’s intent was not quite so insidious, and in fact he seemed to have been
more motivated by a desire to avert annexation by Los Angeles, with its
37 McAdam and Snider, 43.
38 “California’s Choicest Locality” brochure (1891‐1892), in Snider, 22.
39 McAdam and Snider, 62.
40 Los Angeles Times, 17 May 1903.
41 Los Angeles Times, 17 May 1903.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23
undesirable tax rates.42 But he certainly planned to establish a horse racing track
and was no opponent of gambling, so on that count at least the Anti‐Saloon
League was correct. After a few months, during which a census found the
requisite number of Arcadia residents (some of which may have been quite
temporary in nature) and no evidence was found of nefarious motivations on
Baldwin’s part, Arcadia successfully incorporated. The incorporation election
resulted in the anointing of Baldwin as mayor and the filling of most city positions
with his closest colleagues and employees.
By 1904, Arcadia had a school district, a city newspaper, and a number of active
liquor licenses. Its residential growth had picked up since its most moribund
years, but was still slow. Most new houses were on large parcels holding small‐
scale farming operations or poultry ranches, and orchards were far more common
than residential neighborhoods. Commercial development was centered on
Huntington Drive (called Falling Leaf Avenue at that time) at 1st Avenue, near
where the Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, and Pacific Electric routes intersected. At
that time, the business district consisted of a few wood frame buildings,
dominated by the Hotel Oakwood.43 Institutional development was slow, with no
churches or other social organizations beyond the school and newspaper finding a
foothold in Arcadia for a few years. The city received a boost in visitor numbers,
at least, with the Pacific Electric’s establishment of the Orange Grove Route in
1905. Like other excursion routes of the time, this line was intended for day
trippers from Los Angeles and brought tourists to see the Baldwin Ranch, San
Gabriel Mission, and other sights of the San Gabriel Valley.
In 1907, Baldwin realized the rest of his horse racing dream with the
incorporation of the Los Angeles Racing Association and the construction of the
first Santa Anita Park. Sited on what is now the Santa Anita Golf Course, the
racetrack was billed as the most modern and beautiful in the nation and saw a
crowd of thousands on its opening day. It quickly became the best‐known
attraction in Arcadia and greatly increased the number of visitors to the city. Both
the Pacific Electric and the Southern Pacific lines provided transportation directly
to the park. As a result, by 1909, a dozen active saloons, poker rooms and music
halls entertained all comers, and the refurbished Hotel Oakwood was constantly
full.
42 Snider, 50.
43 Eberly, 42‐43.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 24
The good times were not to last, for Arcadia or for Lucky Baldwin. In March 1909,
Baldwin died at age 81 in his adobe ranch home. His treasured Santa Anita Park
closed the same year, the victim of a new California law banning horse racing.
Baldwin’s will left his daughters Clara and Anita his Los Angeles County land
holdings, some 33,000 acres in all. Before its disbursement, some land was
subdivided and sold off to pay off the estate’s debts. The main Baldwin Ranch was
left untouched, in keeping with Baldwin’s will. After the settlement was finally
completed some four years later, Anita Baldwin took over management duties at
the ranch and converted much of its agricultural area into grazing for larger herds
of cattle, sheep, hogs, and horses. She was a philanthropist and major political
and social force in Arcadia and greater Los Angeles through the 1930s. Clara
Baldwin was less involved in Arcadia’s political scene, but was active socially and
ran Clara Villa, one of the city’s earliest resorts, for years. She lived on White Oak
Avenue (now Foothill Boulevard) in the northern part of town from 1907 until her
death in 1929.
Figure 10. First
Santa Anita Park,
1909 ( Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 25
Theme: Early Residential Development, 1875-1909
Residential development was slow and scattered during Arcadia’s earliest years;
while Lucky Baldwin made his first attempts at drawing residents to his new
townsites of Baldwin in 1883 and then Arcadia in 1887, the actual numbers of lots
sold and houses built appear to have been very low indeed. The densest
residential development took place in the heart of the Arcadia townsite, around
the intersection of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads where the few
commercial properties (like the Hotel Oakwood) could be found. The 1908
Sanborn fire insurance map shows that this “densest” area contained only one or
two small houses per block, and was some 20 years after the platting of the
townsite. One of those houses, dating to 1902, is still extant at 114 La Porte
Street; it represents the oldest known property in the Arcadia townsite, and the
only one to pre‐date the city’s 1903 incorporation. Most of this area’s early
single‐family residences likely resembled this two‐story, gabled‐roofed house,
built in a vernacular idiom.
The houses in Arcadia’s downtown core around the railroad junction sat on small
lots compared to those in the other known residential subdivisions at the time:
the 1891 Santa Anita Colony, Colony Addition No. 1, and Colony Addition No. 2
tracts. These early subdivisions were in the southern part of what would become
Arcadia, in an area bounded today by Duarte Road, Lower Azusa Road, Baldwin
Avenue, and 2nd Avenue. Their parcels were between nine and 20 acres in size
and their buyers, few as they may have been, envisioned a rural existence with
small‐scale farming and ranching activities.44 The houses built in this area were
predominantly one‐ and two‐story buildings in the Craftsman style, and most
properties had associated outbuildings like privies, chicken coops, and stables.
Much of this land was not developed until the 1920s, when the larger parcels
were divided up into one to five acre lots, and the rest was developed in
subsequent years when even these parcels were divided into lots of less than one
acre apiece.
The census taken in 1903 to ascertain whether the proposed city of Arcadia had
at least 500 residents found 642, though many of those were workers living on
the Baldwin Ranch property, some were members of a railroad grading camp in
Arcadia on a temporary basis, and others may well have been hired on a one‐day
basis to inflate population numbers.45 As demonstrated by the small population at
the time of incorporation, Arcadia just did not have the numbers for a large or
highly visible pattern of residential development. Intact examples of the city’s
earliest residences, low in numbers to begin with, are even rarer today. The most
intact known example of a pre‐1909 single‐family residence is the Clara Baldwin
44 McAdam and Snider, 43, 57.
45 Snider, 48‐49.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 26
house, a large two‐story Craftsman‐style building constructed in 1907 at what is
now 291 Foothill Boulevard. Known as “Canary Cottage” and “Twin Oaks,” this
grandiose residence is not the kind of house that typified Arcadia in its early
years, but it is highly significant both for its association with Clara Baldwin and for
its architectural style.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 27
Theme: Early Institutional Development, 1875-1909
Institutional development was slow to the point of being almost non‐existent
during Arcadia’s earliest years, with few churches, governmental bodies, or social
organizations being established except for a school (no longer extant) and a
newspaper. The most crucial developments were in the realm of infrastructure,
notably transportation networks of railroads, streetcar lines, and roads. These
networks were key to the success of early Arcadia, starting with the
establishment of rail services, quickly moving to the construction of local roads,
and reaching their zenith with the addition of streetcar service in 1903. While the
railroad and streetcar lines are no longer present, their routes remain etched on
the physical layout of Arcadia in the form of wide streets with medians cutting
diagonally through the otherwise‐rectilinear grid of the city.
Figure 11. Aerial
view of Santa
Anita Avenue,
1926. (Arcadia
Public Library,
Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 28
Very early on, Arcadia advertised itself as a community easily accessed from all
over the region, with plenty of roads for local travel. The earliest advertisements
for the Santa Anita Tract/Arcadia boasted “broad avenues already open and
graded,” as well as “the intention of Mr. Baldwin to run a motor railroad along
the entire length of Santa Anita Avenue.”46 This supposed Santa Anita Avenue
Railway would have run from a grandiose hotel at the mouth of Santa Anita
Canyon, south some six miles to connect with a Southern Pacific Railroad depot.47
This hotel‐to‐be is faithfully depicted in a ca. 1887 birds‐eye view of Arcadia,
although it never existed and neither did the intended motor railroad.48 The
smaller Hotel Oakwood was constructed in Arcadia’s business district, if nothing
else, and Santa Anita Avenue was in fact an impressive road. Graded and planted
with an estimated 40,000 eucalyptus and pepper trees in a double row, Santa
Anita was the showcase boulevard of Arcadia. Its central portion was a dedicated
bridle path.49 Today its history is reflected in its width and its impressive
landscaped median, now containing deodar cedar trees rather than eucalyptus or
pepper trees.
46 Advertisement, Los Angeles Daily Herald 23 January 1887, in Snider, 17.
47 McAdam and Snider, 43.
48 H.S. Crocker & Co., Birdseye View of Arcadia and Santa Anita Tract, San Gabriel Valley, Los
Angeles County, California, ca. 1887, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public Library.
49 Eberly, 33.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 29
Context: Early Subdivision and Growth, 1910-1935
Arcadia’s growth remained slow but steady in the years following Lucky Baldwin’s
death, marked in particular by increases in residential and commercial
development during the Southern California boom years of the 1920s. Poultry
farming became a major local industry, continuing the city’s long history of
ranching and agriculture, while new, more urban business districts developed and
expanded. Institutional growth was punctuated by the establishment of the Ross
Field balloon school during World War I, and continued as the community
became more settled and unified. This context addresses extant built resources
that are associated with Arcadia’s growth from the 1910s to the mid‐1930s, which
provided the foundation for the city’s layout and built environment as they exist
today. Accounted for are built resources that were constructed between 1910,
after the death of community founder Lucky Baldwin, and 1935, the year before
the last of the Baldwin family land was subdivided for development, north of
Huntington Drive.
In 1910, Arcadia’s population was only 696, but the next few years saw increasing
numbers of homeowners scattered across the city.50 As historian Gordon Eberly
explains it, they were far‐flung, on larger pieces of land:
The influx of new home owners was on the increase, most of them buying
tracts of considerable acreage. Fifty, a hundred or even more acres were
often the purchases of these new arrivals, all in the southern part of the
city. They were substantial citizens, interested in a community of good
homes and they were proceeding to take an active interest in the affairs
of the city.51
Not all parcels purchased by Arcadia’s new homeowners were 50‐100 acres; even
more common in the southern part of the city was the two‐and‐a‐half to five acre
lot on which a resident could site a house, a small orchard, and some chickens,
horses, and cows.52 Subdivision of larger parcels (including in the Santa Anita
Colony and Additions tracts first subdivided in 1891) picked up the pace in the
southern portion of the city, making available these smaller and more affordable
lots. In 1910, 300 acres known as Tract 808 were divided into two‐and‐a‐half to
five acre lots; bounded by 1st Avenue, 10th Avenue, Duarte Road, and Valnett
Street (now Camino Real), the land sold for $700 to $750 an acre.53 Other
50 “Facts about Arcadia,” from 1968 City publication, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public
Library.
51 Eberly, 58.
52 McAdam and Snider, 95.
53 Tract No. 808 map, March 1910, available at Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
accessed September 2015, http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM;
Eberly, 63.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 30
subdivisions followed, including the F.A. Geier tract east of 10th and south of
Duarte in 1913, and Tract 2731 bounded by Baldwin Avenue, the western city
limits (about Michillinda Avenue), Huntington Drive, and Duarte in 1914.54
On a larger scale in an area of town far to the north, Anita Baldwin completed
construction of Arcadia’s residential crown jewel, the mansion and estate known
as Anoakia. Built at the corner of White Oak Avenue (now Foothill Boulevard) and
Baldwin Avenue in 1915, Anoakia served as a school after Baldwin’s 1939 death; it
was razed in 2000 and replaced with a gated residential development. Only the
perimeter wall and gatehouse remain today.
Along with its slow but steady residential growth, the young city began to see a
shift from its early sporting days to more respectable pursuits, as it outlawed
liquor licensing in 1912 and embarked on a series of civic improvements. After
several fires (including conflagrations that destroyed the White City saloon in
1909, the Hotel Oakwood in 1911, and Santa Anita Park’s grandstand in 1912),
Arcadia organized a fire department. By 1915, electric street lights had been
installed in some commercial and residential areas, and gas lines were laid to
serve residents and businesses.55 Huntington Drive was extended through Arcadia
and on to Monrovia, streets were graded and oiled (and in a few cases paved),
and a rudimentary municipal water system was put into place. And in 1918,
Arcadia completed its first City Hall (no longer extant) at the northwest corner of
Huntington and 1st.
Arcadia found itself a small part on a larger stage in 1917, after the United States
entered World War I. Anita Baldwin sold the old 185‐acre Santa Anita Park
54 Eberly, 63.
55 Eberly, 57, 64.
Figure 12. Anita
Baldwin’s residence,
Anoakia, 1915. Anoakia
was demolished in
2000 and replaced with
a gated residential
community (Los
Angeles Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 31
property (located where Arcadia County Park is now) to Los Angeles County, who
deeded it to the War Department for use as a balloon training school; large
hydrogen balloons carrying men in baskets to great heights were used to observe
enemy positions and movements. Enormous hangars were constructed, old
stables were converted into barracks and storehouses, and new buildings were
constructed along Huntington Drive. Ross Field housed about 3,500 men, an
enormous population influx which proved a strain on Arcadia’s minimal
infrastructure. The men trained at the balloon school never ended up overseas, as
the 1918 Armistice was signed before they shipped out, and the facility closed in
1920. Of its many structures and features, only two remnants survive: what is said
to be a Base Operations Center building, now nearly unrecognizable as part of the
much‐altered Elks Lodge 2025 at 27 W. Huntington Drive, and a mortared stone
retaining wall on the same property (and extending east beyond its parcel). The
retaining wall was once part of the officers’ swimming pool, which is now the Elks’
paved parking lot.
As was true across much of Southern California, the 1920s were a particularly
transformative period in Arcadia’s development. The region thrived after World
War I, and a robust national and regional economy reinvigorated the Southern
California real estate market. It was suddenly not just feasible, but lucrative for
developers to invest in areas like Arcadia, and development boomed as a result.
By 1920, the city’s population had already grown to 2,239, and large farm plots
were being divided into smaller (one acre or less) lots to accommodate more
residents.56 The many tracts subdivided between 1918 and 1923 included some in
southern Arcadia, like Tract 3430 (bounded by Baldwin, Holly Avenue, the
Southern Pacific line, and Duarte) in 1920, as well as one north of Foothill
Boulevard (then White Oak Avenue), between Santa Anita Avenue and Santa
Anita Wash in 1923.57 Numerous streets were opened or extended to access the
new tracts, and lots in the southern part of Arcadia sold rapidly. Those in Tract
4129 north of Foothill, in what is now the Highland Oaks neighborhood, did not
really start selling for some 20 years due to a high minimum required construction
cost ($10,000).58
The 1927 brochure for the A.P. Green subdivision sited just south of the Arcadia
city limits illustrates the typical marketing approach for these 1920s
developments, which included race‐based deed restrictions:
56 “Facts about Arcadia,” from 1968 City publication, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public
Library; McAdam and Snider, 109.
57 Tract No. 3430 map, October 1920, and Tract No. 4129 map, June 1923, available at Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works, accessed September 2015,
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM; Eberly, 79.
58 Eberly, 79.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 32
An acre costs less than a city lot. This district is first class residential and
becoming the home of many having their business in Los Angeles.
It is also famous for its high class Poultry and Rabbit Ranches from which
many have found independent living.
The climate here is ideal, the hottest rays of the summer sun are
tempered by cool sea breezes.
All you need is the desire to own a home on a half acre or acre in the
country with all city conveniences.
Remember the second million population is well on its way to Los Angeles
and the time is not far off when good close in acreage cannot be had.
We protect you with building and race restrictions for the character of
this tract can be judged by the type of homes in the surrounding territory.
Come out and see for yourself.59
As the brochure notes, poultry farming was becoming a major Arcadia industry, as
small‐scale chicken farms were easily established and maintained on relatively
small parcels of land. Rabbit farms were also feasible and common on lots of this
size. By 1926, Arcadia farmers were shipping 5,000 eggs a day to Los Angeles
markets.60 One of many Arcadia chicken farmers in the 1920s was Prince Erik of
Denmark, who married a Canadian and moved to Arcadia in 1924; his home still
stands behind the Arcadia Congregational Church at 2607 S. Santa Anita Avenue.
The small‐lot poultry farmers of the 1920s joined others who had made their
living farming the larger tracts of land for years, including a sizable population of
Japanese vegetable, fruit, and flower farmers.
59 Carroll & Pearce Realty Company, A.P. Green Subdivision Brochure, 1927, on file at Special
Collections, Arcadia Public Library.
60 Los Angeles Times, 1926, in McAdam and Snider, 109.
Figure 13.
Commercial
development along
First Avenue,
Arcadia’s original
commercial center,
1925 (Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 33
Commercial development expanded beyond the existing business district on 1st
Avenue during the 1920s, with businesses gradually moving south toward
Huntington Drive. Huntington was widened between Santa Anita and 5th, while 1st
was widened from the Santa Fe line south to California Street.61 New businesses
in that area included a theater, banks, various retail and service operations in new
commercial blocks, and even a drive‐in market. Sanborn fire insurance maps
indicate that commercial‐industrial operations were established in the area
adjacent to the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroad junction by 1924, including
the San Gabriel Valley Lumber Company at the northwest corner of Walnut
Avenue (now Wheeler Avenue; no longer extant).
This small, railroad‐dependent industrial area also contained some of Arcadia’s
very sparse multi‐family housing, with at least one triplex fronting on 1st Avenue
and a three‐building grouping of one‐story buildings labeled on the 1924 Sanborn
as “Mexican Tenements.” These are located behind the Southern Pacific depot at
the corner of Front Street and 1st. A Roman Catholic chapel nearby is also labeled
as Mexican.62 The same buildings appear on the 1932 Sanborn map. None of
these properties appear to be extant today.
A second business district emerged at Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road to serve
the growing population of West Arcadia, with its earliest construction in 1924.
Several mixed‐use commercial buildings were constructed and housed businesses
such as a drugstore, market, realty office, and an array of retail merchants. Other
commercial properties, from service stations to vegetable markets, were
scattered across the city.
Institutional development finally began to catch up with rest of Arcadia, most
visibly in the form of schools. First Avenue School (originally Arcadia Grammar
School; 301 S. 1st Avenue) was constructed with 1919 bond funds to serve over
200 students, and in 1926 it was joined by Holly Avenue School at 360 W. Duarte
Road in the western part of town. Many of this school’s students were the
children of Japanese American flower and vegetable growers who farmed large
parcels in the western and southern parts of Arcadia.63 Both schools are still
extant, though their campuses have seen extensive additions over the years to
accommodate growing student populations. Other institutions established during
the 1910s and 1920s included an American Legion post, a public library, a
Chamber of Commerce, several fraternal orders, a riding and hunting club, a
baseball club, a golf club, and the Woman’s Club of Arcadia (with its 1931
clubhouse at 324 S. 1st Avenue still extant).64 The Woman’s Club was particularly
influential in the early institutional development of the city, spearheading
61 Eberly, 84.
62 Sanborn Map Company, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, February 1924, Sheet 3.
63 McAdam and Snider, 110.
64 McAdam and Snider, 110.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 34
establishment of the library, providing support services at Ross Field during World
War I, and promoting Arcadia by creating Rose Bowl floats. The city’s
infrastructure also continued to develop, albeit slowly, during this time; Arcadia
still did not have a public sewer system, but it did have more paved streets, a new
water reservoir, and thanks to a joint agreement with Monrovia, a new concrete
bridge over Santa Anita Wash at Huntington Drive (1925).65
65 Eberly, 85‐87, 94.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 35
Theme: Residential Development, 1910-1935
Arcadia’s residential development between 1910 and 1935 set the stage for the
swifter growth that was to come, and firmly established the city as a community
of single‐family houses. Development during this period was more rapid and
widespread than the minimal amount seen during Arcadia’s earliest years, thanks
in large part to a region‐wide boom in land speculation and subdivision for profit.
During the 1910s, subdivision of larger parcels into smaller ones (most popularly
in the two‐and‐a‐half to five acre range) beckoned a wider range of buyers. Unlike
the buyers of the earlier years, the new Arcadians were not necessarily full‐time
farmers or ranchers, but rather new suburbanites who wanted a relatively large
plot on which they could keep a small orchard, chickens and maybe a horse or
cow along with their single‐family home. This subdivision pattern was common in
the southern part of the city, primarily in the Santa Anita Colony and Additions
No. 1 and No. 2 tracts first subdivided in 1891.
A typical southern tract from this time period was the 300‐acre Tract 808,
bounded by 1st Avenue, 10th Avenue, Duarte Road, and Valnett Street (now
Camino Real). Subdivided in 1910, its two‐and‐a‐half to five acre lots sold for $700
to $750 an acre.66 This tract and others like it were further subdivided into much
smaller lots as residential development in Arcadia exploded during the post‐
World War II period.
Farther north, adjacent to the original Arcadia townsite, subdivision proceeded at
the same rate during the 1910s and saw the same acceleration in construction
during the 1920s; this area (roughly bounded by S. 1st Avenue, S. 3rd Avenue, E.
Huntington Drive, and E. Duarte Road) had an even greater number of residences,
mostly because lots were smaller and more abundant. Tract 866, subdivided in
1910, is an excellent example of the typical 1910s subdivision 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.67 This tract became a fairly dense
residential neighborhood, likely attractive to buyers for its affordable lot prices
and desirable location with easy access to railroad and streetcar routes. The
northernmost part of Arcadia was little developed during the 1910s, with the
exception of a few large properties like Anita Baldwin’s Anoakia at the corner of
White Oak Avenue (now Foothill Boulevard) and Baldwin Avenue (1915). Only the
perimeter wall and gatehouse of this property remain today.
66 Tract No. 808 map, March 1910, available at Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
accessed September 2015, http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM;
Eberly, 63.
67 Tract No. 866 map, June 1910, available at Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
accessed September 2015, http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 36
During the 1920s, residential subdivision accelerated, with many new tracts
opening all over the city both north and south of the original townsite, and
development extending farther west than it ever had. The 1920s tracts tended to
feature smaller lots, although the same basic pattern was evident as in the 1910s:
larger, multi‐acre parcels were in the southern part of town, while smaller, sub‐
acre parcels were closer to the original townsite, the Pacific Electric line, and the
commercial district around Huntington and 1st. Tract 7723, bounded by White
Oak Avenue (now Foothill Boulevard), 5th Avenue, Floral Avenue, and 2nd
Avenue/Wigwam Avenue, is an excellent example of a 1920s tract.68 This small
tract was subdivided in 1923 and featured lots averaging 50 ft. x 130 ft. in size.
Construction commenced quickly, and houses from the mid to late 1920s are still
extant there today, joined by later construction from the 1930s and 1940s.
Most of the 1910s and ‘20s subdivisions tended to adhere to a rectilinear grid and
their roads were graded and in some cases paved. The streets usually did not
have curbs or sidewalks, as these features were not common citywide until
constructed in the civic improvement projects of the postwar period. Some tracts
had more ornamental features like streetlights, although few examples of these
remain. One exception to the rule was Tract 4129 in the northern part of Arcadia,
in what is now the Highland Oaks neighborhood. Envisioned as a highly exclusive
neighborhood, this subdivision featured curving streets, large lots, and a $10,000
minimum construction cost.69 As a result, it saw hardly any construction until
after World War II.
As in the 1910s, residential construction in the 1920s and early ‘30s was
dominated by single‐family houses of modest size. The earliest of these were
constructed in the Craftsman style, while Period Revival styles, primarily Tudor
Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival with rarer examples of Monterey Revival and
French Revival, became prominent in the mid‐1920s and dominated residential
construction by the end of the decade and into the 1930s. Multi‐family residences
were very rare, with no known examples from the 1910s or ‘20s. One 1930s
courtyard apartment, The Fleeta (1935), was constructed in the American
Colonial Revival style at 124 S. Santa Anita Ave (this building remains extant at
this location today).
68 Tract No. 7723 map, November 1923, available at Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, accessed September 2015,
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM. Although Foothill Boulevard is
commercial today, it was primarily residential during the 1920s.
69 Eberly, 79.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 37
Theme: Commercial and Recreational Development, 1910-
1935
Arcadia’s commercial development was slow during the 1910s, restricted mostly
to a few new businesses in the area of 1st Avenue, but expanded significantly
during the 1920s. During this time, the existing business district in the original
townsite gradually shifted south on 1st Avenue and west and east along
Huntington Drive. Huntington was widened between Santa Anita and 5th Avenue
during this period, while 1st was widened from the Santa Fe line south to
California Street.70
Several businesses were added to the existing commercial district in the 1920s
and ‘30s, including a theater, banks, a newspaper, various retail and service
operations in new commercial blocks, and even a drive‐in market. Only a few
1920s and early ‘30s commercial properties remain in the district, including a
former shoe shop and grocery store (1923) at 323‐325 N. 1st Avenue (heavily
altered; now Arcadia Welfare and Thrift), and the former Arcadia Tribune (1930)
at 8 N. 1st Avenue.
In the first decades of the 20th century, Arcadia witnessed the construction of a
small number of industrial‐related properties concentrated along the Santa Fe
and Southern Pacific railroad junction, adjacent to the city’s original commercial
district. Sanborn fire insurance maps indicate industrial properties such as lumber
companies, fruit canning and packing facilities, and storage warehouses were
present in the 1920s and ‘30s. None of these industrial operations appear to be
extant.
70 Eberly, 84.
Figure 14. Commercial
development along
Duarte Road near
Baldwin Avenue, ca.
1930. (Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 38
A second business district at Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road was established in
the 1920s to serve the growing population of West Arcadia, the earliest
development begun in 1924. The first commercial building constructed at this
intersection appears to have been an Art Deco‐style building at the southwest
corner, housing a realty office, drugstore, market, and hardware store; it was
quickly followed by a Spanish Colonial Revival‐style strip across Baldwin,
containing a Bank of Italy branch, another realty office, and various retail
merchants.71 Development extended south from there. Remnants of this early
business district are very rare, with the only known example being the much‐
altered 1926 building at 1218 S. Baldwin Avenue that now contains Terry’s Station
Bar.
The large majority of Arcadia’s commercial development in the early 1930s
centered on the opening of the Santa Anita Park and Racetrack, and the extension
of Highway 66 through the city. In 1933, California re‐legalized horse race betting,
and Anita Baldwin seized her opportunity to revive her father’s racetrack dream.
After a false start involving a deal gone sour with a prominent track promoter, the
new Santa Anita Park began with Baldwin’s sale of 214 acres to a group of
investors. The owners hired architect Gordon Kaufman to design the grandstand,
Turf Club, and clubhouse; Kaufman’s design integrated Late Moderne, Art Deco,
and American Colonial Revival styles to great effect. Later‐renowned landscape
designer Tommy Tomson created the park’s lush landscape design, in his first
major commission.72 Santa Anita Park opened on Christmas day, 1934, and quickly
became Arcadia’s signature landmark, attracting Hollywood stars and racegoers
from miles around. Large‐purse races attracted the best stables, not to mention
the most serious bettors. Kaufman‐designed additions were constructed in 1937
and 1938 to enlarge the park’s buildings, and subsequent additions by other
architects eventually linked the grandstand and clubhouse buildings.73 The nearly
300‐acre Santa Anita property, including the Kaufman buildings as well as stables,
the paddock, other structures, the track itself, and the surrounding landscape, has
been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.74
71 Arcadia Chamber of Commerce photographs, in McAdam and Snider, 116.
72 The Cultural Landscape Foundation, “Tommy Tomson,” accessed September 2015,
https://tclf.org/pioneer/tommy‐tomson.
73 Los Angeles Conservancy, “Santa Anita Park,” accessed September 2015,
https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/santa‐anita‐park.
74 The property is considered historically significant for its 1942 use as the Santa Anita Assembly
Center for Japanese American internees (discussed later in this context), as well as for its 1930s
architecture and place in thoroughbred racing history.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 39
The success of the racetrack proved a great boon to Arcadia, bringing business as
well as positive publicity to the city during the Depression. Business owners took
full advantage of the influx of racetrack visitors by opening motels, restaurants,
and tourist attractions like W. Parker Lyon’s flamboyant Pony Express Museum
(no longer extant), with its vast collection of “Wild West” memorabilia.
Huntington Drive and Colorado Boulevard were opened through the old Baldwin
Ranch to connect to transcontinental Highway 66 in 1931. By 1932, the route
through Arcadia had been split between Foothill Boulevard and a portion of
Huntington Drive.75 Businesses capitalized upon the extension of Highway 66, as
service stations, drive‐in markets, and motor courts were constructed to serve
motorists along the route.
75 Los Angeles Times, 29 May 1932 and 2 August 1932.
Figure 15. Santa
Anita Park, paddock
and entrance, 1936
(Los Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 40
Theme: Institutional Development, 1910-1935
As with its commercial development, Arcadia’s institutional development was
fairly slow during the 1910s and picked up during the 1920s and ‘30s. The 1910s
did see some infrastructure improvements, notably the extension of Huntington
Drive and its widening through the original business district; the grading, oiling,
and (more rarely) paving of streets; the installation of electric streetlights in some
commercial and residential areas; the establishment of a municipal water system;
and the laying of new gas lines.76 With the increase in utilities services, Southern
Counties Gas Company constructed a centrally located office for customer
services and administrative purposes at 314 N. 1st Avenue in 1928. As the city’s
population continued to grow in the late 1910s, the need for a permanent
location for its local governing bodies was apparent. In 1918, Arcadia completed
its first City Hall (no longer extant) at the northwest corner of Huntington and 1st.
The most notable institutional development of the 1910s was not Arcadia’s doing,
but rather the U.S. War Department’s: the establishment of the Ross Field Balloon
School for the training of observation balloon crews during World War I. This
facility was located where Arcadia County Park is now. Anita Baldwin sold the old
185‐acre Santa Anita Park property (located where Arcadia County Park is now) to
Los Angeles County, who deeded it to the War Department. Large hydrogen
balloons carrying men in baskets to great heights were used to observe enemy
positions and movements. Enormous hangars were constructed, old stables were
converted into barracks and storehouses, and new buildings were constructed
along Huntington Drive. Ross Field housed about 3,500 men, a huge population
influx which proved quite a strain on Arcadia’s minimal infrastructure. The men
trained at the balloon school never ended up overseas, as the 1918 Armistice was
signed before they shipped out, and the facility closed in 1920. Of its many
structures and features, only two remnants survive: what is said to be a Base
Operations Center building, now nearly unrecognizable as part of the much‐
altered Elks Lodge 2025 at 27 W. Huntington Drive, and a mortared stone
retaining wall on the same property (and extending east beyond its parcel). The
retaining wall was once part of the officers’ swimming pool, which is now the Elks’
paved parking lot.
The 1919 construction of First Avenue School (301 S. 1st Avenue, extant)
foreshadowed an increase in institutional development through the 1920s and
‘30s. This large school was constructed with bond funds to serve over 200
students, replacing the smaller school that had served the district for years. By
the end of the 1920s, Arcadia had many more institutions, including an American
Legion post, a public library, a Chamber of Commerce, several fraternal orders, a
riding and hunting club, a baseball club, a golf club, and the Woman’s Club of
76 Eberly, 57, 64.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 41
Arcadia (with its 1931 clubhouse at 324 S. 1st Avenue still extant).77 It also had
another school: Holly Avenue School (360 W. Duarte Road, extant), constructed in
1926 to serve the rapidly growing student population in the western part of town.
Infrastructure improvements in the 1920s included the paving of more streets, a
new water reservoir, and a new concrete bridge at Huntington Drive over Santa
Anita Wash.78 In 1931, the same year Highway 66 was extended, Arcadia planted
deodar cedars along Huntington and Colorado Boulevard, in a beautification
project aiming to attract some of the thousands of visitors coming to Los Angeles
for the 1932 Olympic Games.79
77 McAdam and Snider, 110.
78 Eberly, 85‐87, 94.
79 Eberly, 104.
Figure 16. Arcadia
Grammar School
(which later became
First Avenue School),
ca. 1919. (Arcadia,
Arcadia Historical
Society, 32).
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 42
Context: The Final Baldwin Subdivisions and
Arcadia During Wartime, 1936-1945
In an era characterized by economic uncertainty and massive unemployment,
most communities saw a near‐cessation of construction activity during the Great
Depression. Arcadia was a rare exception, seeing continued residential
subdivision and construction activity during the Depression. This was thanks, in
part, to the popularity of the new Santa Anita Park and Racetrack, and was
further boosted by Anita Baldwin selling off of her remaining tracts of Lucky
Baldwin’s land. The entry of the United States into World War II provided another
boost to the local economy with the establishment of military facilities and the
accompanying increase in demand for commercial services. This context
addresses extant built resources that are associated with Arcadia’s late 1930s and
World War II‐era growth, so unusual for the time period and important in the
shaping of the physical and social character of present‐day Arcadia. Accounted for
are built resources that were constructed between 1936, when the last of
Baldwin family land north of Huntington Drive was sold for development, and
1945, the end of World War II.
Arcadia received another Depression‐era gift: a large new county park on the old
Ross Field site, constructed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) between
1936 and 1938. One of the work relief programs established as part of President
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the WPA employed many people during the
Depression. At the Arcadia site, large work crews removed the old Ross Field
buildings, laid water pipes, graded and created a golf course, and constructed
multiple buildings and recreational facilities. In cooperation with other county
groups, the WPA Federal Arts Project had Preston L. Prescott create a large statue
of the Hugo Reid family to be placed at a prominent site at the park; the statue
was moved to the grounds of the new Gilb Museum of Arcadia Heritage in 2003.80
The Santa Anita Regional Recreational Center (now Arcadia County Park) was
established at no cost to the City of Arcadia, and still serves residents today. The
WPA completed a number of other projects in the city during this time period,
including channelizing drainages with walls of mortared stone and concrete, and
constructing concrete bridges over these flood control features.
In one major (and final) transaction that would spur another period of single‐
family growth, Anita Baldwin sold off the remainder – approximately 1,300 acres
– of the Baldwin property (except for her Anoakia estate).81 The buyer was a
syndicate called Rancho Santa Anita, Inc., headed by Harry Chandler, publisher of
the Los Angeles Times. The syndicate parceled out much of the old ranch land into
a number of subdivisions, including Santa Anita Village, the Rancho, the Upper
80 Eberly, 127; McAdam and Snider, 139
81 Baldwin died in 1939.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 43
Rancho, Santa Anita Gardens, and Colorado Oaks.82 House construction
commenced in these neighborhoods as early as 1936, providing much‐needed
employment to local builders. Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. and other companies also
developed Depression‐era subdivisions on smaller portions of land it acquired
from other owners (most notably the heirs of Clara Baldwin). While the pace of
development was fairly slow compared to what was to come during the post‐
World War II period, and these neighborhoods were not fully built out until the
1950s, their establishment reversed the slowdown of the early 1930s. According
to historian Gordon Eberly, only 30 to 40 houses per year were constructed
between 1930 and 1935, while the number jumped to over 200 after 1936 and
the establishment of the new subdivisions.83 Work slowed again during World
War II, when federal restrictions on building materials were instated.
82 It did not subdivide or sell the core Baldwin Ranch land containing Baldwin Lake, the Hugo Reid
adobe, and the Queen Anne buildings at this time, and in fact used the Baldwin Lake area primarily
as a filming location for hire; numerous Hollywood productions shot there during the 1930s and
1940s.
83 Eberly, 139.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 44
By 1940, Arcadia’s population had reached 9,122, representing substantial growth
during the Great Depression.84 It was soon to increase dramatically, if
temporarily, due to the U.S. entry into World War II in December 1941. Among
the immediate ramifications of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was the
establishment of an Executive Order authorizing the exclusion of American
residents of Japanese descent from areas deemed of military concern. This meant
84 “Facts about Arcadia,” from 1968 City publication, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public
Library.
Figure 17. Aerial
view of the north
half of Arcadia,
1938. The street
running east‐west,
just north of the
center of the image
is Foothill Blvd
(Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 45
Japanese Americans living in the western portions of California, Oregon, and
Washington were to be removed from their homes and placed in relocation
centers, regardless of their loyalties, citizenship status, or length of time they had
lived in the U.S.; in many cases, families who had been Americans for multiple
generations lost their homes, businesses, and property during this process. The
effect on Arcadia was massive: Santa Anita Park was taken over by the War
Department for use as a temporary assembly center where evacuees would be
held until internment camps further inland were constructed.
By the end of April 1942, approximately 500 new buildings (mostly barracks) had
been constructed, and existing stables and other buildings had been converted
into rudimentary living quarters.85 By the beginning of June, the Santa Anita
Assembly Center reached full capacity with a population of almost 19,000
disenfranchised Japanese Americans. The camp’s residents tried to make their
lives as normal as possible within a 420‐acre property surrounded by barbed wire
and lookout towers with armed guards, establishing a post office, schools, sports
leagues, a newspaper, a fire department, a hospital, a job office, and even Boy
Scout troops. The occupation of the assembly center was intense, taking quite a
toll on Arcadia’s still‐immature infrastructure (the city still did not have a sewer
system), but was fairly brief. By October 1942, all of the camp’s residents had
been transported to internment camps, mostly in Colorado, Wyoming, Arkansas,
and Arizona.86
85 Konrad Linke, “Santa Anita (detention facility),” Densho Encyclopedia, accessed September 2015,
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Santa_Anita_%28detention_facility%29/.
86 Jeffrey F. Burton et al., Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II Japanese
American Relocation Sites (Tucson: National Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation
Figure 18. Santa Anita
Assembly Center at
Santa Anita Park, where
Japanese Americans
were temporarily held
during World War II,
1939 (Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 46
After the assembly center closed, the War Department converted the property
into a training facility for nearly 20,000 soldiers. Camp Santa Anita, as it was
known, was the largest Army ordinance training center on the West Coast; the
sudden influx of Army personnel had an even greater social and economic effect
on Arcadia than the establishment of the assembly center did, given the non‐
imprisoned population’s increased number of opportunities for local interactions.
Personnel numbers declined as soldiers were shipped overseas, and in its last
incarnation Camp Santa Anita primarily served as a POW camp housing captured
German and Polish soldiers.
Arcadia’s economy remained stable during World War II, bolstered by jobs at Los
Angeles‐area defense plants, as well as War Department money and
infrastructure assistance. Construction remained at a near‐standstill due to
restrictions on building materials, but was very soon to resume as Arcadia saw its
largest surge in development yet during the postwar period.
Center, 1999), in Konrad Linke, “Santa Anita (detention facility),” Densho Encyclopedia, accessed
September 2015, http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Santa_Anita_%28detention_facility%29/.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 47
Theme: Residential Development, 1936-1945
Little subdivision occurred in Arcadia during the early 1930s, and most residential
construction that did occur took place in neighborhoods that had been developed
a decade prior. However, this changed considerably in 1936 when Harry
Chandler’s land syndicate, Rancho Santa Anita, Inc., acquired the last 1,300 acres
of Anita Baldwin’s ranch land for residential development. The first Rancho Santa
Anita, Inc. subdivision to be placed on the market was Santa Anita Village in 1937.
Bounded by N. Sunset Boulevard, S. Michillinda Avenue, Hugo Reid Drive, S.
Baldwin Avenue, and W. Huntington Drive, the Village featured “medium priced,
attractive houses” in a landscape with curvilinear streets and uniform setbacks.87
The next was the Upper Rancho in the northern part of the city, between W.
Orange Grove Avenue, N. Baldwin Avenue, W. Foothill Boulevard, and S.
Michillinda Avenue. This was a very exclusive subdivision with curvilinear streets,
ornamental streetlights, and large lots with mature live oak and sycamore trees.
The lower Rancho soon followed, located between the Village and the Upper
Rancho and featuring curvilinear streets, uniform setbacks, and lot sizes greater
than those in the Village. The syndicate’s last subdivision was Colorado Oaks, a
more modest neighborhood bounded by N. Baldwin Avenue, W. Colorado
Boulevard, and the Santa Anita Park property. It featured smaller lots and fewer
large native trees, but had a curvilinear street layout like that seen in the
wealthier neighborhoods. Colorado Oaks was not placed on the market during
the 1930s, but was held by the syndicate until 1950.88
Depression‐era subdivisions on land other than the Anita Baldwin property
included the picturesque Santa Anita Oaks in the northern foothills, sold by the
daughter of Clara Baldwin and developed by Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. as an
exclusive residential district with curvilinear streets, massive live oaks, and large
lots. Baldwin’s heirs subdivided other tracts in the area generally known as
Baldwin Stocker (in the southwestern part of the city) into smaller lots, though
even these were relatively large and had building restrictions requiring larger
homes; the area around Le Roy Avenue between Holly Avenue and El Monte
Avenue is a good example of these 1930s Baldwin Stocker subdivisions.89 Due to
the large size of these lots, this area has seen substantial demolition and new
construction of much larger houses in the 2000s.
The residential development of the late 1930s also included more modest
neighborhoods like Havenhurst, built in what was once a rocky, uneven area just
east of Santa Anita Wash; the Churchill Company purchased this affordable land,
filled its gullies with soil, and created a neighborhood of modest Minimal
87 Eberly, 142.
88 Eberly, 142.
89 Eberly, 140.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 48
Traditional houses available at reasonable prices.90 With most of its houses
constructed in 1940, Havenhurst was “the first project of mass production of
houses in Arcadia,” foretelling what would become the dominant type of
residential development in Southern California during the postwar period.91 This
neighborhood, bounded roughly by 2nd Avenue, 5th Avenue, Colorado Avenue,
and Laurel Avenue, is still recognizable today as a 1930s‐1940s planned housing
development, although many of its individual buildings have experienced
extensive alterations that obscure their historic character. Similar to Havenhurst
(albeit without the mass‐produced houses), Santa Anita Gardens featured smaller
lots on curvilinear streets and was marketed toward the working class. This
subdivision, located just east of Colorado Oaks, was owned and developed by the
Gower Company.
90 Eberly, 140.
91 Eberly, 140.
Figures 19 amd 20.
Advertisements for
Rancho Santa Anita
residential
developments, The
Oaks, The Rancho,
and The Village (Los
Angeles Times, 1941‐
1943)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 49
Construction of single‐family houses in most of these late 1930s subdivisions
began as soon as lots started coming available. This resulted in a number of
custom, architect‐designed houses in the American Colonial Revival, Tudor
Revival, and Traditional Ranch styles in the exclusive Upper Rancho and Santa
Anita Oaks neighborhoods, as well as more modest Minimal Traditional, Tudor
Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Colonial Revival houses (both
custom and developer‐built) in other neighborhoods. Regardless of lot size,
owner wealth, or location, residential construction work ceased almost entirely
with the entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941. Restrictions on building
materials needed for the war effort meant a stop in construction across Southern
California at this time. As discussed in the Post‐World War II Development
context to follow, most of these Depression‐era subdivisions did not see the
majority of their actual house construction until after the end of the war in 1945.
Multi‐family residential development continued to comprise a very small amount
of Arcadia’s housing stock during the Great Depression and World War II, in
contrast to many Southern California communities dealing with increases in
population at this time. A 1940 zoning map reveals that very few areas of Arcadia
allowed multi‐family residences; the largest area was along Huntington Drive
between Holly Avenue and the western city limits, which was primarily zoned R‐3,
“limited multiple residence and apartment district,” with a smaller area zoned R‐
2, “two family residence district.”92 Smaller stretches of R‐2 and R‐3 zoning
existed along Santa Anita Avenue, 1st Avenue, and 2nd Avenue between Duarte
Road and Foothill Boulevard, interspersed with commercially zoned areas. R‐2
zoning was also present immediately behind the business district along Baldwin
Avenue between Fairview Avenue and Camino Real. It appears that few multi‐
family residences were constructed in these areas during the 1930s and 1940s, as
most of the buildings there now date to the postwar period.
92 G.B. Watson (city engineer), Zoning Map of the City of Arcadia, California, June 1940, on file at
Special Collections, Arcadia Public Library.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 50
Theme: Commercial Development, 1936-1945
U.S. Route 66, which ran through Arcadia on both Foothill Boulevard and
Huntington Drive, continued to experience automobile‐oriented commercial
development in the mid‐1930s and ‘40s. Huntington Drive’s business district was
the primary beneficiary of the increased traffic, and saw increased commercial
development beginning in the 1930s and reaching its height during the postwar
period. While Foothill saw commercial development during the 1930s and ‘40s,
most of its construction took place in the 1950s and later. By 1939, Arcadia’s
major commercial districts contained over 250 businesses.93
Arcadia’s commercial buildings of this period included one and two‐story office
buildings as well as one‐story blocks and strips with multiple occupants. Art Deco
was a popular commercial style at this time, as seen in extant properties like 201
S. 1st Avenue (1937, with rear building at 54 Bonita Street) and 21 S. 1st Avenue
(1938). Historic photographs from the 1930s and early 1940s show that other
commercial properties featured the Spanish Colonial Revival and Late Moderne
styles.94 As with residential construction, commercial construction essentially
ceased during World War II, so very few commercial buildings were erected
between 1941 and 1945.
93 McAdam and Snider, 145.
94 William Orr, panoramic photograph of Huntington Drive ca. 1930, in McAdam and Snider, 130;
Arcadia Historical Society, Arcadia (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008), 71.
Figure 21. The Derby
restaurant, 233 E.
Huntington Dr., ca.
1938. The Derby,
located in the original
Proctor’s Tavern
restaurant building,
was founded by famed
jockey and owner of
the legendary
Seabiscuit, George
Woolf. (Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 51
Theme: Institutional Development, 1936-1945
Most of Arcadia’s institutional development during this period was dependent on
federal sources, from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the late 1930s
to the War Department between 1942 and 1945. Neither the funds nor the will
were present for many independently‐financed municipal improvements during
this period, and as a result the city continued to struggle along without a sewer
system or many other infrastructure systems other communities had had for
years.
The city received a massive—and free‐‐recreational complex in 1938, when the
WPA completed construction of the new Santa Anita Regional Recreational
Center (Arcadia County Park) on the old Ross Field site. Other WPA projects that
helped the city included channelizing drainages with walls of mortared stone and
concrete, and constructing new concrete bridges over these much‐needed flood
control features. Some of these infrastructure features are still extant and used
today: a concrete bridge carries traffic on Grandview Avenue over an impressive
mortared stone and concrete channel (paralleled by Oak View Lane), and another
bridge with decorative tile does the same at Sierra Madre Boulevard near La
Ramada Avenue, all courtesy of the federal government.
Figure 22.
Dismantling of the
Ross Field Balloon
School for the
construction of the
Santa Anita Regional
Recreational Center,
1932 (Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 52
New and existing social and religious institutions constructed some facilities
during the prewar period, including Arcadia Lutheran Church at 1424 S. Baldwin
Avenue (1939; the Serbian Orthodox Church of Christ Our Savior since 1964). But
on the whole, Arcadia’s institutions made do with what they had until
construction could resume after World War II. During the war itself, the city’s
most visible institutional development was the repurposing of Santa Anita Park
into first an assembly center for Japanese American internees, then an Army
ordnance training facility, and finally a POW camp for captured Axis soldiers.
While the changes to the Santa Anita property were dramatic, they were only
temporary, and at the war’s end the racetrack reverted to its original purpose.
Figure 23. The original
Arcadia Lutheran Church,
1424 S. Baldwin Ave., ca.
1948. The Serbian
Orthodox Church of
Christ Our Savior
acquired the building in
1964 and remodeled its
façade in 1966 to appear
as it does today (Arcadia
Public Library, Arcadia,
CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 53
Context: Post-World War II Development, 1946-
1970
In Arcadia, as in the rest of Southern California and the country as a whole, the
post‐World War II period was marked by a renewed sense of optimism and
prosperity. The city witnessed unprecedented population growth and a surge in
development between the mid‐1940s and 1970, transforming the once‐rural
town into the populous and dynamic “community of homes” of today. This
context addresses extant built resources that are associated with the postwar
growth and expansion that played such a profound role in shaping the built
environment and character of present‐day Arcadia. Accounted for are built
resources that were constructed between 1946, after the end of World War II,
and 1970, when the nation experienced a series of economic changes that
brought about an end to the postwar period.
In the years immediately after World War II, California entered into a period
marked by tremendous growth. Between 1940 and 1950, the population of
California increased by an astonishing 53 percent.95 Arcadia’s population growth
even surpassed that statistic, more than doubling from 9,122 in 1940 to 23,066 in
1950.96 The mass influx of new settlers to California is generally attributed to a
variety of interrelated factors. As World War II came to a close, scores of soldiers
who had been stationed overseas returned home, got married, had children, and
sought a place to settle down and raise a family. Heavily‐subsidized home loans
offered by the Veterans’ Administration (VA) made it tenable for military veterans
to buy a new house in the suburbs. Other federal programs, including low‐interest
mortgages offered by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), promoted
homeownership and encouraged the construction of single‐family houses in
suburban environments. The transition from a wartime to peacetime economy
released Americans’ pent‐up consumer demand. The proliferation of the car and
auto‐related infrastructure, including the construction of an expansive regional
freeway network throughout Southern California, helped to further realize the
development of housing in more suburban areas.
With its desirable location in the San Gabriel Valley and an already well‐
established sense of community, Arcadia earned its moniker “Community of
Homes,” largely due to the vast amount of residential development that occurred
in the city in the decades following World War II. The subdivisions and large home
lots that had been laid out in the mid‐1930s but remained largely unbuilt due to
the onset of the war provided a ready canvas for home construction, and vacant
95 Kevin Starr, Embattled Dreams: California in War and Peace, 1940‐1950 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 193‐194.
96 “Facts about Arcadia,” from 1968 City publication, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public
Library.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 54
lots quickly began to fill in during the early postwar years. In 1948, the Arcadia
Tribune reported over $8 million in construction, including 650 houses and 35
commercial properties.97
In 1950, over 1,200 new dwelling units were completed.98 Hundreds of acres of
residential subdivisions were developed to accommodate the steady influx of new
arrivals to the city. In already established 1930s‐1940s subdivisions like Santa
Anita Village, the Rancho, Upper Rancho, and Santa Anita Oaks, empty lots were
quickly filled with custom‐built, single‐family houses. For the first time in Arcadia,
construction of multi‐family housing helped to accommodate the large influx of
new residents. Very few multi‐family buildings had been built in Arcadia during
the pre‐war period, but the increase in population necessitated the creation of
more housing, most visibly in the form of courtyard apartments along major
thoroughfares like Baldwin Avenue, Santa Anita Avenue, and Huntington Drive.
Commercial development progressed just as quickly as residential construction,
with more and more businesses established to serve the needs of the growing
postwar population. In the late 1940s‐early 1950s, the business districts at
Huntington Drive/1st Avenue and Baldwin Avenue/Duarte Road filled in any
97 John Luke, 100 Years of Arcadia (Arcadia, CA: Core Media Group, Inc., 2003), 17.
98 Eberly, 182.
Figure 24. Example of
multi‐family
courtyard apartments
constructed along
Baldwin Avenue in
the postwar era.
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 55
remaining empty lots, and expanded from their original cores. The portion of the
Route 66 commercial district along Foothill Boulevard also saw its densest
development during this time. The existing corridors were joined by new
commercial complexes like the El Rancho Shopping Center on Huntington and
smaller commercial strips along routes like Duarte Road. The newer commercial
areas tended to be more explicitly automobile‐oriented than the older ones south
of Foothill Boulevard, and even the older areas now saw car rather than streetcar
traffic, as Pacific Electric ceased operation of its famed Red Cars through the city
in 1951 and switched to motor coaches (buses).
Institutional development also accelerated during the postwar period, with
existing institutions coming into full maturity and nearly a school a year being
constructed between 1947 and 1956 to serve the booming student population.99
Existing churches and social organizations were joined by new ones all over the
city. Arcadia could no longer ignore the pressure its rudimentary infrastructure
system was under, and finally constructed a municipal sewer system in 1948 after
many years of failed proposals and political infighting. Another long‐delayed
project, construction of a civic center, finally came to pass in the same year. Like
the sewer issue, the civic center issue had been a years‐long battle featuring
debates over potential locations, size, and cost. Finally, an agreement was
reached and an imposing new city hall was constructed on a large parcel on
Huntington Drive. It was partially funded by revenue from a new five‐cent
admission tax levied on Santa Anita Park patrons, which also helped pay for
99 McAdam and Snider, 163.
Figure 25. A mix of
pre‐ and postwar
commercial
development along
Huntington Dr.,
1963 (Los Angeles
Public Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 56
construction of the local hospital (completed in 1957), police station, library, and
other buildings. Subsequent development and new construction at the civic
center property in the 1960s and ‘70s led to the complex in existence today.
As reported by historians Pat McAdam and Sandy Snider, a 1957 Arcadia Chamber
of Commerce report aptly illustrated the dynamic growth of civic services:
In the ten years from 1947‐1957, Arcadia’s Police Department grew from
18 to 45 officers; the Fire Department provided protection for 12,000
homes and several business districts… In 1957 city maintenance was
required for 125 miles of paved streets and almost as many miles of
sewers; over 20,000 street trees were regularly pruned. Arcadia’s Water
Department reported more than 1,000 swimming pools in the city in 1957
and over 145 miles of water mains that distributed water to 10,800
customers and 830 fire hydrants.100
Arcadia gained another public attraction during the postwar period with the
establishment of the Los Angeles State and County Arboretum (now known as the
Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden). In the mid‐1940s, Rancho
Santa Anita Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. planned to subdivide the heart of the old
Baldwin Ranch, going so far as to stake out lots, establish a tract office on Tallac
Knoll, and ready itself to start selling.101 Alarmed at the potential loss of the
historic landscape, and prodded by passionate amateur horticulturalist Samuel
Ayres, Los Angeles County and the State of California joined forces to propose
purchasing a 111‐acre area around Tallac Knoll. Syndicate head Harry Chandler
readily agreed to take the land off the market, and in 1947, it became the Los
Angeles State and County Arboretum.102 The Arboretum preserved the historic
Reid and Baldwin buildings, as well as the historic landscape and Baldwin Lake, as
a crucial part of its development into a popular recreational and educational
destination over the years. Following the 1950 development of a master plan by
architect Harry Sims Bent, the Arboretum opened to the public in 1955. The
facility is known not just for its diverse and picturesque landscapes, but for its
architecture, from the Queen Anne buildings of the Baldwin era to the Mid‐
Century Modern designs by architects Allison & Rible (who designed the 1955‐
100 McAdam and Snider, 164.
101 George H. Spalding, The First Twenty‐five Years: A History of The Los Angeles State and County
Arboretum (Arcadia, CA: The California Arboretum Foundation, 1973), 3, in Historic Resources
Group, LLC and kornrandolph, Inc., Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment Plan for the Los
Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden (prepared for the Los Angeles County Arboretum
and Botanic Garden, 2014), 8.
102 Ibid. The later acquisition of additional parcels led to a total size of 127 acres.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 57
1956 administration and gate house buildings and created the Arboretum’s
building master plan in 1958).103
By 1957, Arcadia had grown to 37,271 residents, over four times as many people
recorded at the beginning of World War II, and by 1960 the population had
reached 41,005.104 Development of all types continued at the same frenetic rate
through the 1950s and 1960s, and Arcadia’s reputation as a desirable, wealthy
suburban community solidified. Access to the city, already fairly straightforward
thanks to Route 66, became even easier with the construction of what would
become Interstate/State Route 210 (the Foothill Freeway). The Arcadia Historical
Society (another local institution established during the postwar period)
accomplished one of its most visible acts of preservation in 1969‐1970 when it
moved the Santa Anita Depot from its location in the proposed path of the
Foothill Freeway. The building, reduced to its component parts, was relocated to
the grounds of the Arboretum and reconstructed using its original materials.
Arcadia’s other train station, the Santa Fe depot, was saved and relocated at the
same time and now resides at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds in Pomona.
In 1970, Arcadia had a population of 42,868 residents and was almost fully
developed. The city has seen new cycles of demographic and physical
103 Historic Resources Group, LLC and kornrandolph, Inc., Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment
Plan for the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden (prepared for the Los Angeles
County Arboretum and Botanic Garden, 2014), 19.
104 “Facts about Arcadia,” from 1968 City publication, on file at Special Collections, Arcadia Public
Library.
Figure 26.
Administration building,
Los Angeles County
Arboretum and Botanic
Garden, 1957. (J. Paul
Getty Trust, Getty
Research Institute, Los
Angeles (2004.R.10))
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 58
development in its more recent history, most visibly in its residential
neighborhoods; the later history is addressed in the Subsequent History section
that follows this context.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 59
Theme: Postwar Residential Development, 1945-1970
Much of Arcadia’s residential development that took place in the decades
following World War II consisted of single‐family houses, both mass‐produced
and custom‐built. Approximately one third of postwar residential construction
occurred in areas that had been subdivided by Harry Chandler’s land syndicate,
Rancho Santa Anita, Inc., in the late 1930s, but remained partially undeveloped
due to the Great Depression and World War II. These neighborhoods, located
north of Huntington Drive and west of Santa Anita Avenue, include Upper
Rancho, Santa Anita Oaks, the Rancho, and Santa Anita Village. The Upper Rancho
and Santa Anita Oaks neighborhoods, and to a lesser extent, the Rancho
neighborhood, were developed with large lots, custom, architect‐designed
houses (including some by architects Roland E. Coate, Harold Chambers, and
Gordon Kauffman), and lush landscaping of lawns and mature shade trees.105 In
contrast, Santa Anita Village was composed of smaller lots and uniform house
styles and plan types, more typical of a Depression‐era or postwar residential
subdivision.
The Highland Oaks (also known as the Santa Anita Highlands) neighborhood,
located north of Foothill Boulevard and east of Santa Anita Avenue, was originally
subdivided in the 1920s by the Cook Woodley Company as a highly exclusive
community featuring large lots, picturesque views, and a $10,000 minimum
construction cost. By the time the minimum building cost was reduced to a
reasonable $6,000 in 1941, construction in the city had come to an almost
complete standstill due to America’s involvement in World War II.106
Development of the neighborhood took off in the 1950s when the Santa Anita
105 Harold M. Finley, “Final Vast Tract of Baldwin Barony Sold: Purchase of 1038 Famous Acres
Rounds Out Great Homesite Project,” Los Angeles Times, 27 September 1936, E1.
106 Eberly, 79.
Figure 27.
Advertisements for
the Upper Rancho
and Santa Anita
Highlands residential
developments. (Los
Angeles Times, 22
February 1953)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 60
Improvement Company resumed marketing its architect‐designed homes and
bucolic scenery.107 Santa Anita Gardens, another neighborhood built before and
after World War II, was owned and developed by the Gower Company. Santa
Anita Gardens was distinguished from the wealthier neighborhoods north of
Foothill Boulevard, as it was marketed towards the working class, particularly
those employed in the defense industry. The Federal Housing Administration‐
financed community, located just north of the Santa Anita Racetrack, provided
affordable housing conveniently located near shopping, schools, and outdoor
activities.108
The majority of post‐World War II residential development occurred in areas
north of Huntington Drive. These neighborhoods generally retained paved,
curvilinear streets (some without sidewalks), medium to large setbacks, and
landscaped front yards (often containing one or more mature shade trees). In
addition to the neighborhoods Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. had begun developing
prior to World War II, the company was also responsible for the development of
Colorado Oaks, a uniform subdivision of modest Ranch‐style residences, north of
the racetrack. Postwar residential neighborhoods constructed south of
Huntington Drive were composed of several disparate tracts with multiple
developers. Lots are smaller in this area, and residences are typically more
107 “Models Finished in Arcadia Tract,” Los Angeles Times, 22 February 1942, 15.
108 “Ideals Realized at Santa Anita: Distinctive Community of New Homes Developed on Historic Old
Rancho,” Los Angeles Times, 1 February 1942, 20.
Figure 28. View of
Colorado Boulevard,
looking east, 1956.
North of Colorado (on
the left side of the
photo) is Santa Anita
Gardens, a pre‐World
War II residential
community that was
fully developed by the
mid‐1950s (Arcadia
Public Library, Arcadia,
CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 61
modest. Many of these neighborhoods south of Huntington have been subjected
to the construction of much larger single‐family homes beginning in the 1980s
through the present. As a result, few visually cohesive postwar subdivisions
remain in this area.
Various iterations of the Ranch style dominated single‐family residential designs
in postwar Arcadia. While Traditional Ranch‐style residences were most
prevalent, Minimal Ranch houses were built in areas that developed earlier, and
Contemporary Ranch as well as Mid‐Century Modern residences were
interspersed throughout the city. Most custom‐designed houses were
constructed north of Foothill Boulevard in the Upper Rancho, Santa Anita Oaks,
and Highlands neighborhoods. Neighborhoods consisting of both pre‐ and
postwar development also contained American Colonial Revival‐style residences.
Although the pre‐ and postwar‐developed neighborhoods span multiple decades
and retain a variety of architectural styles, the scale and massing of the houses,
lush landscaping, and uniform setbacks provide a cohesive residential suburban
setting.
Though single‐family housing comprised much of the residential construction
after World War II, small‐scale multi‐family residential development occurred as
well (most of which was also built in the north half of the city). Due to Arcadia’s
large population increase in the postwar era, the need for more densely‐
developed housing became apparent. One‐ and two‐story apartment houses and
courtyard apartments were constructed to meet these housing needs. Multi‐
family housing was largely concentrated along major corridors such as Santa Anita
Avenue, Baldwin Avenue, and Huntington Drive, and was also clustered in
postwar subdivisions, primarily in the West Arcadia neighborhood. Whereas one‐
story fourplexes and courtyard apartments were common in the 1950s, larger
two‐story apartments and courtyard housing prevailed in the 1960s.
As Arcadia’s neighborhoods were mostly complete by the end of the 1950s,
residential construction that occurred in the 1960s was largely to fill the last of
the vacant lots in areas developed in the decade prior. Residences from the 1960s
were typically Contemporary Ranch or Mid‐Century Modern in design and
included both single‐ and multi‐family housing. By the late 1970s, new residential
construction often resulted in the demolition of older housing stock.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 62
Theme: Postwar Commercial Development, 1945-1970
In order to meet the consumer demands of Arcadia’s expanding postwar
population, commercial development in the city increased exponentially.
Commercial development in the mid‐1940s and ‘50s generally followed
previously‐established patterns of development along the city’s major pre‐war
thoroughfares, such as 1st Avenue, Huntington Drive, Foothill Boulevard, and
Baldwin Avenue, as well as along newer, auto‐centered corridors such as Live Oak
Avenue. Original business districts at 1st/Huntington and on Baldwin/Duarte
continued to expand outward from their commercial centers. The Route 66
section of Foothill Boulevard, which remained the city’s main connection
between neighboring communities until the completion of the Foothill Freeway in
the early 1970s, continued to grow with new commercial establishments.
Corridors such as Live Oak Avenue also experienced increased development in the
postwar period, albeit on a smaller scale.
Arcadia received its first major department store, a J.C. Penney’s located on
Baldwin Avenue (no longer extant), in 1948.109 That same year, El Rancho
Shopping Center, featuring hardware, sporting goods, and shoe repair stores,
among others, opened on Huntington Drive.110 In 1951, Arcadia’s Chamber of
Commerce conducted a survey in order to compile a complete census of all the
109 J.C. Penney would return to Arcadia as an anchor of the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall,
constructed on portions of the Santa Anita Park and Racetrack land in 1974.
110 McAdam and Snider, 148, 161.
Figure 29. Aerial view
of Huntington Drive
and 1st Avenue,
Arcadia’s origingal
business district, ca.
1955 (Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 63
city’s businesses and to determine additional needed services for its burgeoning
population.111 Existing local commercial establishments were soon joined by
larger retail chains, including Hinshaw’s department store (1951; now the much‐
altered Burlington Coat Factory) at the southwest corner of Baldwin Avenue and
Duarte Road; Nash’s department store (1953; no longer extant) at 1325 S.
Baldwin Avenue; and Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1954) at 1500 S. Baldwin
Avenue. A number of financial institutions, mostly designed in austere, Late
Modern styles, found their place on major thoroughfares throughout the city.
Among these bank buildings were the Home Savings and Loan (1960; now Chase
Bank), created by the noted designer Millard Sheets, at 60 E. Huntington Drive
and the Pacific Savings and Loan (1964; now Citibank) at 41 E. Live Oak Avenue.
As with much of postwar Southern California, Arcadia’s commercial development
had become increasingly automobile‐oriented by the mid‐1940s and ‘50s. New
businesses in the city often featured Modern designs and flashy, eye‐catching
signage, aimed at drawing the attention of motorists passing by. Mid‐Century
Modern‐style restaurants and walk‐up food stands, such as Taco Treat (1950) at
74 E. Live Oak Avenue, Rod’s Grill (1957) at 41 W. Huntington Drive, and Van de
Kamp’s (1967; now Denny’s) at 7 E. Huntington Drive, are illustrative of Arcadia’s
postwar, auto‐oriented development.
By the late 1950s and ‘60s, Arcadia’s commercial development had become quite
diverse. A range of businesses, from manufacturing companies, to professional
services, to highly‐specialized consulting firms, had been established in the city in
the decades following World War II.112 By 1970, Arcadia had matured into a
prosperous suburban community, a far cry from the small farms and chicken
ranches of its rural past.
111 “Business Survey Plans Drawn,” Los Angeles Times, 28 June 1951, 23.
112 McAdam and Snider, 176.
Figure 30. El Rancho
shopping center, ca.
1948 (Arcadia Public
Library, Arcadia, CA)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 64
Theme: Postwar Institutional Development, 1945-1970
Institutional development played a major role in shaping Arcadia’s built
environment in the post‐World War II era. A range of public and private
institutions were constructed in the postwar period to serve the daily needs of
the city’s growing population. Several institutional insufficiencies became
apparent with Arcadia’s influx of new residents in the years following World War
II, most notably the long‐standing need for a municipal sewer system and civic
center, and additional educational facilities for the city’s booming school‐age
population.
By the mid‐1940s, Arcadia had become the largest city in California without a
sewer system. In September of 1944, City Council applied to the State Board of
Health to construct a sewer system, costing approximately $1 million. The initial
proposed location for the disposal plant was on city land south of Live Oak
Avenue. In March of 1945, the Mayor appointed 18 members to the newly‐
formed Citizens’ Sewer Committee, and the engineering firm of Koebig and
Koebig was hired to draft plans for the system.113 After much debate and
opposition by the county engineer and some citizens, City Council and the
electorate approved a plan to pay for city sewer lines that would connect with Los
Angeles County trunk lines feeding into a sewage disposal plant at Wilmington.
The original construction estimate of $1 million was grossly undervalued, as the
final project, begun in 1948, cost $3.2 million.114
Like the city’s sewer system, public debate and opposition caused much delay in
the advancement of a new civic center. The primary deliberation was around its
location. Over a period of four years, at least five different locations were
proposed by various city interests for the civic center site. Finally, in 1947, under
the advice of the appointed Citizens’ Committee, City Council purchased 13 acres
between Huntington Drive and the Pacific Electric tracks for the construction of
the civic center. A city hall (no longer extant), the first building constructed on the
new site, was completed in 1949. A police station (no longer extant) was added to
the civic center in 1957, and a round, Mid‐Century Modern Chamber of
Commerce building was constructed at the complex in 1965. Further
development of the civic center complex continued through the 1970s and was
largely complete by the 1990s.
A series of infrastructure improvements were undertaken by the city during the
postwar era as well. After the Pacific Electric streetcar line ceased operation along
Huntington Drive in 1951, tracks were removed and streetcars were replaced
with motor coaches. In 1964, while Arcadia was undergoing revitalization efforts
113 Eberly, 172‐173.
114 McAdam and Snider, 148‐149.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 65
of its historic commercial district (near the intersection of 1st Avenue and
Huntington Drive), landscaping of the median strip along Huntington Drive was
begun.115 Landscaping efforts, which included lawn and palm tree plantings, were
largely complete by the end of the decade.116 It was during this same time period
when the city approved a five‐year, $500,000 project for the construction of
sidewalks throughout the area.117
Arcadia’s postwar school‐age population proved a major stress on the city’s public
school system, and overcrowding soon became a problem. Between 1945 and
1950, enrollment had nearly doubled to over 3,000 students, and the city had to
build a new school almost yearly in order to accommodate growing demands. In
1948, Hugo Reid School was constructed in the Santa Anita Village neighborhood;
in 1950, Highland Oaks School was built at the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and
Virginia Drive; and in 1951, Longley Way School was built near the city’s southern
boundary, just west of El Monte Avenue.118 Prior to 1945, Arcadia did not have its
own high school. Rather, it shared facilities with the cities of Monrovia and
Duarte. With Arcadia’s population increase after World War II, the need for its
own high school was apparent, and Arcadia High School was opened in 1952. Five
school bonds totaling over $10 million were passed between 1951 and 1963 to
support the construction of new schools and improvement of existing educational
facilities.119
A number of religious and fraternal buildings were constructed throughout the
city in the mid‐1940s through the 1960s. The postwar period represented a shift
in stylistic preferences amongst religious institutions, as most churches built after
World War II featured varied and dynamic Modern designs. Modern‐style
churches in the city include Arcadia Presbyterian Church (1951) at 121 Alice
Street, Santa Anita Church (1959) at 226 W. Colorado Boulevard, and Lutheran
Church of the Cross (1964) at 66 W. Duarte Road. Not all religious organizations
reflected this new preference for Modernism; the Church of the Good Shepherd
campus was built in the more traditional, Tudor Revival style between 1946 and
1957. In 1963, Christ the Savior Serbian Orthodox congregation acquired the
Arcadia Lutheran Church building at 1424 S. Baldwin Avenue, establishing the
“first Serbian Orthodox Church in the Inter‐City area.”120 In 1966, the
congregation added a new façade to the existing building to reflect its new
religious affiliation.
115 “Towne Center Street Job Readied,” Arcadia Tribune, 27 December 1964.
116 Historic Aerials, Arcadia, CA, 1952‐1972, accessed September 2015,
http://www.historicaerials.com.
117 McAdam and Snider, 189.
118 Eberly, 185‐186; McAdam and Snider, 173.
119 McAdam and Snider, 173 and 189.
120 “Serbian Orthodox Church,” Arcadia Tribune, 31 December 1964, 4.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 66
Institutions established prior to World War II continued to expand, resulting in
the need for new facilities. Arcadia Lodge No. 547, F.&A.M. (now Arcadia Lodge
No. 278) was founded in 1922, and its first Masonic Temple was built in 1937 on
S. Santa Anita Avenue. In 1965, the Lodge constructed a new, Mid‐Century
Modern‐style building at 50 W. Duarte Road. The Masonic Temple is among
several Modern institutional buildings along this stretch of Duarte Road.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 67
Architectural Styles
Arcadia’s built environment represents an array of architectural types and styles
that represent different periods in the city’s development. Together, these
various architectural styles provide Arcadia with distinctive aesthetic qualities and
help to define the community’s character.
The most common architectural styles in Arcadia correspond with major periods
in the community’s development history. Prior to the 1920s, Arcadia was largely
composed of small family orchards and two‐ to five‐acre farm plots scattered
across the southern half of the city (much of the north half remained private
property of the Baldwin family until the late 1930s). A small number of
Craftsman‐style dwellings, dating from the 1900s to the mid‐1910s, are located in
Arcadia’s earliest subdivisions, south of Huntington Drive. When the real estate
market skyrocketed in the city after World War I, Craftsman architecture had
largely fallen out of fashion in favor of Period Revival styles. As a result, the city
features a number of Period Revival style residences – particularly Tudor Revival
and Spanish Colonial Revival – south of Huntington Drive and west of Santa Anita
Avenue, an area that experienced the greatest amount of development after the
war.
Arcadia experienced slow but steady growth through the Great Depression, in
part due to the opening of the new Santa Anita Park and Racetrack in 1934 and
the subdivision of some 1,300 acres of much desired Baldwin property for
residential development in 1936. While custom‐designed Tudor Revival and
American Colonial Revival houses cropped up one by one in wealthy subdivisions
north of Foothill Boulevard during the Depression, Minimal Traditional and Period
Revival residences were built in neighborhoods of more modest lot size and
character throughout the city. By the 1930s, Arcadia’s commercial architecture
reflected a shift away from the historicist idioms of the 1920s toward a newer,
Modernistic vocabulary. In the 1930s, a handful of Art Deco and Late Moderne
commercial buildings were constructed in the city’s earliest commercial district,
near the intersection of Huntington Drive and 1st Avenue.
Arcadia experienced tremendous growth following World War II. The city’s
postwar population boom resulted in the construction of several significant
Ranch‐style neighborhoods, predominantly north of Huntington Drive, as well as
Mid‐Century Modern and Late Modern commercial properties along major
commercial corridors.
For each architectural style that is identified, a brief discussion of the style and its
origins is provided, and followed by a list of typical character‐defining features.
Character‐defining features are defined as those visual aspects and physical
features that, together, comprise the appearance of a historic building. They
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 68
generally include “the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship,
decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of
its site and environment.”121 The National Park Service’s (NPS) Preservation Brief
17: Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as
an Aid to Preserving their Character provides further guidance regarding the
identification of character‐defining features.
Each of the styles discussed herein is not tailored to a particular property type
(though some styles, such as Ranch, may largely be reflected in a single property
type). Rather, they are intended to be all‐encompassing and applicable to the
variety of property types found throughout the city.
Victorian
Victorian era architecture became popular in the United States during the 1860s
when new advances in construction (i.e. the creation of the lighter wood
“balloon” framing, and wire nails) allowed for more complicated building forms.
Victorian styles reflect these changes through their extravagant detailing and
complex volumes. Victorian era architecture was further popularized during the
Centennial celebrations of 1876, becoming the dominant architectural idiom of
the 20th century. Victorian architecture is loosely derived from medieval
prototypes, typically featuring multi‐colored or multi‐textured walls, steeply
pitched roofs, and asymmetrical façades.122 By the turn of the century, Victorian
styles had moved out of favor, replaced with America’s first truly modern styles,
Craftsman and Prairie.
Queen Anne
The Queen Anne style is a late example of Victorian era architecture that
emerged in the United States in the late 1870s. Pattern books and pre‐cut
architectural details helped to disseminate the style across the country. Queen
Anne architecture is characterized by steeply pitched roofs, complex and
asymmetrical building volumes, partial or full‐width porches, textured shingles,
and decorative spindlework.123 As the Queen Anne style reached its height in
popularity during Arcadia’s initial period of development, the only extant
examples that exist in the city are the Lucky Baldwin Queen Anne Cottage and
Coach Barn at the Arboretum.
121 National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Preservation Brief 17: Architectural
Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their
Character,” prepared by Lee H. Nelson, Sept. 1988, 1.
122 Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2009), 239.
123 McAlester and McAlester (2009), 263‐268.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 69
Common character‐defining features of the Queen Anne style include:
Two stories in height
Complex building volumes and asymmetrical façades
Steeply pitched roofs of irregular shape
Dominant front‐facing gables
Patterned wood shingles
Partial or full‐width porches
Single‐paned double‐hung wood sash windows
Decorative spindlework and half‐timbering
Arts and Crafts Movement
The Arts and Crafts movement emerged in England as a reaction against the
materialism brought about by the Industrial Revolution.124 Led by English designer
William Morris, the movement focused on simplicity of form, direct response to
site, informal character and extensive use of natural materials. At the turn of the
20th century, the Arts and Crafts movement had made its way to North America
124 City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Architecture and Engineering, Arts and Crafts
Movement: 1895‐1929” (2010), 1.
Figure 31. Example of
a Queen Anne‐style
single‐family
residence, E.J.
“Lucky” Baldwin’s
Queen Anne Cottage,
photo taken 1968
(Los Angeles Public
Library)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 70
and gained popularity through the efforts of Elbert Hubbard and Gustav Stickley,
as well as other designers, architects, and builders who advocated the ideals set
forth by Morris. The Arroyo Seco, a valley stretching from the San Gabriel
Mountains above Pasadena through northeast Los Angeles, became a major
center of the Arts and Crafts movement in the United States. Charles Fletcher
Lummis and George Wharton James, along with artists and architects such as
William Lees Judson, Frederick Roehrig, and Sumner Hunt, contributed to the
development of the Arroyo Culture, the regional manifestation of the Arts and
Crafts movement in Southern California.125
The Arts and Crafts movement was popularized throughout Southern California
by Pasadena‐based brothers Charles and Henry Greene, whose interest in
Japanese wooden architecture, training in the manual arts, and knowledge of the
English Arts and Crafts movement helped to develop regional Arts and Crafts
styles. The styles were then applied to a range of residential property types, from
modest one‐story “bungalows” to grand two‐and‐a‐half story houses.
Craftsman
The Craftsman style is largely a California phenomenon that evolved out of the
Arts and Crafts movement at the turn of the 20th century, a time during which
Southern California was experiencing tremendous growth in population,
expansion of homeownership, and new aesthetic choices. Craftsman architecture
combines Swiss and Japanese elements with the artistic values of the Arts and
Crafts movement. Though the style had begun to lose popularity in the 1920s
with the emergence of Period Revival styles, Craftsman architecture remained
prevalent in Arcadia up to the 1930s. Craftsman‐style residences are scattered
throughout Arcadia’s earlier subdivisions, primarily south of Huntington Drive,
and tend to take the form of modest bungalows over large, multi‐story houses.
Despite their architectural modesty, the increasing rarity of buildings of the
Craftsman style makes them significant for their ability to convey the early history
of the city.
125 City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Architecture and Engineering, Arts and Crafts
Movement: 1895‐1929” (2010), 2‐3.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 71
Common character‐defining features of the Craftsman style include:
One or two stories in height
Building forms that respond to the site
Shingled exteriors (occasionally clapboard or stucco)
Low‐pitched gabled roofs
Broad, overhanging eaves with exposed structural members such as
rafter tails, knee braces, and king posts
Broad front entry porches of half‐ or full‐width, with square or battered
columns, sometimes second‐story sleeping porches
Extensive use of natural materials for columns, chimneys, retaining walls,
and landscape features
Casement windows situated into groups
If Airplane, then has a “pop‐up” second story
If Japanese‐influenced, then may have multi‐gabled roofs or gables that
peak at the apex and flare at the ends
If Chalet‐influenced, then may have single, rectangular building forms,
front‐facing gabled roofs, second‐story balconies, flat balusters with
decorative cutouts or decorative brackets and bargeboards
Figure 32. Example of
a Craftsman‐style
single‐family
residence (ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 72
Period Revival
By the late 1910s, Period Revival architecture prevailed throughout Southern
California. A range of styles associated with Europe and Colonial America inspired
Period Revival architecture in the early twentieth century. These styles remained
a popular choice for residential design through the late 1930s and early 1940s. By
World War II, Period Revival architecture had largely given way to styles such as
Minimal Traditional and Mid‐Century Modern, which were more pared down and
embraced more contemporary materials in lieu of references to the past.
Spanish Colonial Revival
Spanish Colonial Revival architecture gained widespread popularity throughout
Southern California after the 1915 Panama‐California Exposition in San Diego. The
exposition was designed by architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, who wished
to go beyond the popular Mission architectural interpretations of the state’s
colonial past and highlight the richness of Spanish precedents found throughout
Latin America. The exposition prompted other designers to look directly to Spain
for architectural inspiration. The Spanish Colonial Revival style was an attempt to
create a “native” California architectural style that drew upon and romanticized
the state’s colonial past.126
The popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style coincided with Southern
California’s population boom of the 1920s. The versatility of the style, allowing for
builders and architects to construct buildings as simple or as lavish as money
would permit, helped to further spread its popularity throughout the region. The
style’s adaptability also lent its application to a variety of building types, including
single‐ and multi‐family residences, commercial properties, and institutional
buildings. Spanish Colonial Revival architecture often borrowed from other styles
such as Churrigueresque, Italian Villa Revival, Gothic Revival, Moorish Revival, or
Art Deco. The style is characterized by its complex building forms, stucco‐clad wall
surfaces, and clay tile roofs. The Spanish Colonial Revival style remained popular
through the 1930s, with later versions simpler in form and ornamentation.
Spanish Colonial Revival is a prevalent Period Revival style in Arcadia and is
typically applied to single‐family residential properties in neighborhoods south of
Huntington Drive. However, there are several institutional buildings that are also
designed in the style.
126 McAlester and McAlester (2009), 418.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 73
Character‐defining features of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture include:
Complex massing and asymmetrical façades
Incorporation of patios, courtyards, loggias or covered porches and/or
balconies
Stucco wall cladding
Low‐pitched gable or hipped roofs with clay tile roof cladding
Coved, molded, or wood‐bracketed eaves
Towers or turrets
Arched window and door openings
Single and paired multi‐paned windows (predominantly casement)
Decorative stucco or tile vents
Used of secondary materials, including wrought iron, wood, cast stone,
terra cotta, and polychromatic tile
Tudor Revival
The Tudor Revival style was loosely based on a variety of Medieval English
building traditions, ranging from thatched‐roof Tudor cottages to grandiose
Elizabethan and Jacobean manor houses. The first Tudor Revival‐style houses
appeared in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. These houses
were typically elaborate and architect‐designed. Much like the Spanish Colonial
Revival style, Tudor Revival architecture became extremely popular during the
Figure 33. Example of
a Spanish Colonial
Revival single‐family
residence (ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 74
1920s population boom in Southern California. 1920s and 1930s masonry
veneering techniques helped to further disseminate the style, as even modest
houses could afford to mimic the brick and stone exteriors of traditional English
designs.127
Tudor Revival architecture is characterized by its asymmetry, steeply pitched
gabled roofs, decorative half‐timbering, and prominent chimneys. High style
examples are typically two to three stories in height and may exhibit leaded glass
diamond‐paned windows and slate roof shingles. The popularity of the Tudor
Revival style waned during the Great Depression as less ornate building designs
prevailed. Although the style continued to be used through the 1930s, later
interpretations of Tudor Revival architecture were much simpler in terms of form
and design. The Tudor Revival style was a common architectural mode in
Arcadia’s residential areas south of Huntington Drive in the 1920s and early
1930s, and neighborhoods north of Foothill Boulevard in the late 1930s and
1940s. Tudor Revival residences north of Foothill Boulevard often feature
sprawling, one‐story volumes, influenced by the later Ranch style.
Character‐defining features of Tudor Revival architecture include:
Irregular massing and asymmetrical façades
Steeply pitched gabled roofs with a prominent front‐facing gable and
slate, wood shingle, or composition shingle roof cladding
127 McAlester and McAlester (2009), 355.
Figure 34. Example
of a single‐family
residence in the
Tudor Revival style
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 75
Rolled, pointed, and/or flared eaves, sometimes with exposed rafters
Brick, stone, or stucco wall cladding
Decorative half‐timbering
Prominent chimneys
Entrance vestibules with arched openings
Multi‐paned casement windows that are tall, narrow, and typically
arranged in groups
American Colonial Revival
American Colonial Revival architecture experienced a resurgence during the
1920s population boom in Southern California. The style used elements from a
variety of earlier classically‐based architectural modes, including Neoclassical,
Federal, and Georgian. Early examples of the style were typically single‐family
residences; by the 1930s and early 1940s, the style was often employed in the
design of multi‐family residential and small‐scale commercial properties as well. A
number of American Colonial Revival‐style residences, mostly dating to the 1930s,
were found in Arcadia’s neighborhoods north of Huntington Drive.
Common character‐defining features of the American Colonial Revival style
include:
Typically one or two stories in height
Simple building forms
Hipped or gable roofs, typically with boxed eaves
Figure 34. Example of
an American Colonial
Revival multi‐family
courtyard apartment
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 76
May display multiple roof dormers
Symmetrical façade with accentuated entryways
Clapboard or brick exteriors
Multi‐paned double‐hung sash windows, often paired
Paneled front door, sometimes with sidelights and transom or fanlight
Details may include pediments, columns or pilasters, and fixed shutters
Monterey Revival
The Monterey Revival style represented a merging of two other stylistic traditions
– the California colonial architecture developed by Spanish and Mexican settlers
and American colonial architecture brought to the state by emigrants from the
East and Midwest. The style reached its height in popularity by the late 1920s in
Los Angeles, when Period Revival styles were widespread among residential
designs.128 A handful of Monterey Revival single‐family residences were found
throughout Arcadia.
Common character‐defining features of the Monterey Revival style include:
Two stories in height
Rectangular or L‐shaped plan
Low‐pitched gabled or occasionally hipped roofs, either wood‐shingled or
tiled
Rafters or brackets exposed in the eaves
Stucco, brick, and wood exteriors, usually in combination
128 City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Architecture and Designed Landscapes, Revival
Architecture Derived from Mediterranean and Indigenous Themes” (final draft, 2010), 45‐46.
Figure 36. Example
of a Monterey
Revival‐style single‐
family residence
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 77
Relatively restrained, second‐story porches with square or turned posts
Flat‐headed, multi‐paned windows, either casement or double‐hung sash,
often grouped in pairs
Shutters
Paired or single flat‐headed doors
Colonial Revival window and door surrounds129
Modernism
Modernism is an umbrella term that is used to describe a mélange of
architectural styles and schools of design that were introduced in the early
twentieth century, honed in the interwar years, and ultimately came to dominate
the American architectural scene in the decades following World War II. The
tenets of Modernism are diverse, but in the most general sense the movement
eschewed past traditions in favor of an architectural paradigm that was more
progressive and receptive to technological advances and the modernization of
society. It sought to use contemporary materials and building technologies in
manner that prioritized function over form and embraced the “authenticity” of a
building’s requisite elements. Modernism, then, sharply contrasted with the
Period Revival movement that dominated the American architecture scene in
years past, as the latter had relied wholly on historical sources for inspiration.
Modernism is rooted in European architectural developments that made their
debut in the 1920s and coalesced into what became known as the International
style. Championed by some of the most progressive architects of the era –
including Le Corbusier of France, and Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe of
Germany – the International style took new building materials such as iron, steel,
glass, and concrete and fashioned them into functional buildings for the masses.
These ideas were introduced to Southern California in the 1920s upon the
emigration of Austrian architects Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler. Neutra
and Schindler each took the “machine‐like” aesthetic of the International style
and adapted it to the Southern California context through groundbreaking
residential designs. While Neutra and Schindler were indisputably pioneers in the
rise of Southern California Modernism, it should be noted that their contributions
dovetailed with the work of figures such as Frank Lloyd Wright and Irving Gill,
both of whom had experimented with creating a Modern aesthetic derived from
regional sources.
Prior to World War II, Modernism was very much a fringe movement that was
relegated to the sidelines as Period Revival styles and other traditional idioms
prevailed. Its expression was limited to a small number of custom residences and
129 City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources, “Architecture and Designed Landscapes, Revival
Architecture Derived from Mediterranean and Indigenous Themes” (final draft, 2010), 46‐47.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 78
the occasional low‐scale commercial building. However, Americans’ perception of
Modern architecture had undergone a dramatic shift by the end of World War II.
An unprecedented demand for new, quality housing after the war prodded
architects and developers to embrace archetypes that were pared down and
replicable on a mass scale. As a whole, Americans also gravitated toward an
aesthetic that embraced modernity and looked to the future – rather than to the
past – for inspiration, an idea that was popularized by John Entenza’s Arts and
Architecture magazine and its highly influential Case Study House program.
Modern architecture remained popular for the entirety of the postwar era, with
derivatives of the movement persisting well into the 1970s.
As much of Arcadia’s development occurred after World War II, the city retains a
substantial building stock designed in various Modern styles. Mid‐Century
Modern, the most dominant form of Modernism in the postwar era, comprises
the majority of Arcadia’s Modern architecture, applied to a number of residential,
commercial, and institutional properties throughout the city. Pre‐war modern
buildings are less common in Arcadia, though a handful of 1930s Moderne
commercial buildings pepper city’s early business district, near the intersection of
1st Avenue and Huntington Drive.
Art Deco
Art Deco gained popularity in the United States after the Chicago Tribune
competition in 1922. Though the Tribune ultimately chose a Gothic design by John
Mead Howells and Raymond M. Hood, second place, and the overwhelming
favorite, was an Art Deco design by Finnish architect Eliel Saarinen. Saarinen’s
design was widely publicized and became a one of the most popular architectural
styles of the 1920s and ‘30s. The Art Deco style is considered the first to
consciously reject historical precedents, as its earlier Period Revival counterparts
did, and instead took inspiration from the industry and transportation of the
Machine Age.
Most commonly applied to public and commercial buildings, Art Deco‐style
residences are fairly rare. Common features of the style include an emphasis on
verticality through stepped towers, spires, and fluted pilasters, highly stylized
geometric and floral motifs, and ornate metalwork. By the mid‐1930s and the
heights of the Great Depression, the highly decorative architectural mode was
seen as superfluous and garish, and was soon replaced with the cleaner, simpler
Streamline Moderne style.
Though less common than its Period Revival counterparts, the Art Deco style was
employed in the designs of a few of Arcadia’s commercial buildings, largely
centered around Huntington Drive and 1st Avenue.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 79
Character‐defining features of the Art Deco style include:
Vertical emphasis
Smooth, typically stucco wall surfaces
Flat roofs with parapets
Steel fixed or casement windows, sometimes located at corners
Stepped towers, piers, and other vertical elements
Zigzags, chevrons, and other stylized and geometric and floral motifs
Ornate metalwork
Moderne
Moderne architecture, commonly reflected in the sub‐styles of Streamline
Moderne, PWA Moderne, or, in its later iterations, Late Moderne, materialized
during the Great Depression when the highly‐stylized Art Deco mode had become
perceived as excessive and overly flamboyant. The architectural mode was
relatively inexpensive to build due to its lack of ornamentation and use of less
labor‐intensive building materials such as concrete and plaster. Inspired by the
industrial designs of the time, the style was popular throughout the country in the
Figure 37.
Example of Art
Deco commercial
architecture
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 80
late 1930s and continued to be applied, primarily to commercial and institutional
buildings, through the mid‐1940s.
Moderne architecture is characterized by its sleek, aerodynamic form and
horizontal emphasis. A small handful of Streamline and Late Moderne commercial
properties are located in Arcadia’s earliest commercial district, near the
intersection of Huntington Drive and 1st Avenue. Likely Arcadia’s most well‐known
Moderne property, the Santa Anita racetrack, is an excellent example of Late
Moderne architecture, featuring classical elements.
Character‐defining features of Moderne architecture include:
Horizontal emphasis
Smooth, typically stucco wall surfaces
Flat roofs with parapets
Curved wall surfaces
Steel fixed or casement windows, sometimes located at corners
Horizontal moldings (speed lines)
Figure 38. Example
of Late Moderne
commercial
architecture
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 81
Mid-Century Modern
In Southern California, Mid‐Century Modern architecture was prevalent between
the mid‐1940s and mid‐1970s. While the style was a favorite among some of
Southern California’s most influential architects, its minimal ornamentation and
simple, open floor plans lent itself to the mass‐produced housing developments
of the postwar period. Mid‐Century Modern architecture typically incorporated
standardized and prefabricated materials that also proved well‐suited to mass
production. The style was broadly applied to a wide variety of property types
ranging from residential subdivisions and commercial buildings to churches and
public schools. Common characteristics of Mid‐Century Modern architecture
include horizontal massing, open floor plans, wide overhanging eaves, large
expanses of glass, and exposed structural members. A number of Mid‐Century
Modern residences are located in Arcadia’s postwar neighborhoods, and several
small‐scale Mid‐Century Modern commercial properties can be found along the
city’s major commercial corridors. Most of Arcadia’s religious buildings were
designed in the Mid‐Century Modern style following World War II.
Character‐defining features of Mid‐Century Modern architecture include:
Horizontal massing
Expressed post‐and‐beam construction, typically in wood or steel
Flat or low‐pitched roofs
Wide overhanging eaves
Horizontal elements such as fascias that cap the front edge of the flat
roofs or parapets
Figure 39. Example
of a Mid‐Century
Modern institutional
building (ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 82
Stucco wall cladding at times used in combination with other textural
elements, such as brick, clapboard, or concrete block
Aluminum windows grouped within horizontal frames
Oversized decorative elements or decorative face‐mounted light fixtures
Late Modern
Late Modern is a blanket term that is used to describe an iteration of Modern
architecture that came of age between the mid‐1950s and 1970s. Compared to
their Mid‐Century Modern predecessors, which stressed simplicity and
authenticity, Late Modern buildings exhibited a more sculptural quality that
included bold geometric forms, uniform glass skins on concrete surfaces, and
sometimes a heightened expression of structure and system. Subsets of the Late
Modern style include New Formalism, which integrates classical elements and
proportions, and Brutalism, which typically features exposed, raw concrete (béton
brut) and an expression of structural materials and forms. Late Modern
architecture was almost always applied to commercial and institutional buildings
and is associated with such noted architects as Marcel Breuer, Philip Johnson, and
Cesar Pelli. Late Modern‐style banks, churches, and commercial buildings are
located on major corridors such as Huntington Drive, Duarte Road, and Live Oak
Avenue in Arcadia.
Figure 40.
Example of a Late
Modern/Brutalist
office building
(ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 83
Character‐defining features of Late Modern architecture include:
Bold geometric volumes
Modular designed dictated by structural framing and glazing
Unrelieved wall surfaces of glass, metal, concrete, or tile
Unpainted, exposed concrete surfaces
Unapparent door and window openings incorporated into exterior
cladding or treated exterior form
Minimal ornamentation
Ranch
Ranch style architecture first appeared in Southern California in the 1930s.
Inspired by the Spanish and Mexican‐era haciendas of Southern California and the
vernacular, wood‐framed farmhouses dotting the landscape of Northern
California, Texas, and the American West, the style projected an informal, casual
lifestyle that proved to be immensely popular among the American public. Early
iterations of the Ranch style tended to be large, sprawling custom residences that
were designed by noted architects of the day. However, after World War II Ranch
style architecture was pared down and also became a preferred style for
economical, mass‐produced tract housing. By some estimates, nine of every ten
new houses built in the years immediately after World War II embodied the
Ranch style in one way or another. The style remained an immensely popular
choice for residential architecture – and was occasionally adapted to commercial
and institutional properties as well – until it fell out of favor in the mid‐1970s.
Traditional Ranch
Traditional Ranch style architecture made its debut in the 1930s and is what is
generally considered to be the “quintessential Ranch house.” Buildings designed
in the style were awash in historical references associated with the vernacular
architecture of nineteenth century California and the American West, and
generally took on a distinctive, rusticated appearance. Examples of Traditional
Ranch architecture were prominently featured in general interest publications,
notably Sunset magazine, which perpetuated the style’s popularity and led to its
widespread acceptance among the American public.
The Traditional Ranch style is almost always expressed in the form of a one‐story,
single‐family house, although the style was occasionally adapted to commercial
and institutional properties in the postwar era. It is distinguished from other
iterations of the Ranch style by the application of elements associated with the
working ranches of nineteenth century California and the American West.
Features such as low‐pitched roofs with wide eaves, a combination of wall
cladding materials including board‐and‐batten siding, large picture windows, and
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 84
brick and stone chimneys were commonly applied. As Arcadia experienced
tremendous growth in the postwar era, a number of Traditional Ranch‐style
subdivisions are located in the city, most notably north of Huntington Drive.
Character‐defining features of Traditional Ranch style architecture include:
One‐story configuration (two‐story Ranch houses are rare)
Asymmetrical composition with one or more projecting wings
Horizontal massing
Low‐pitched gabled or hipped roof, originally clad with wood shakes
Wide eaves and exposed rafters
Combination of wall cladding materials (wood board‐and‐batten siding is
most common)
Dutch and/or French doors
One or more picture windows
Multi‐light wood windows, often with diamond panes
Brick or stone chimneys
Decorative wood shutters
Attached garage, often appended to the main house via a breezeway
Figure 41.
Example of a
Traditional Ranch‐
style single‐family
residence (ARG,
2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 85
Contemporary Ranch
Contemporary Ranch architecture emerged after World War II. Buildings designed
in the style took on the basic form, configuration, and massing of the Traditional
Ranch house, but instead of historically‐inspired treatments and details they
incorporated the clean lines and abstract geometries associated with Modernism.
The Contemporary Ranch style offered an alternative to the Traditional Ranch
house and was applied to scores of residential buildings constructed between the
mid‐1940s and 1970s.
Like the Traditional Ranch houses from which it is derived, the Contemporary
Ranch style is almost always expressed in the form of a one‐story, single‐family
house. In lieu of the historicist references and rusticated features that are
associated with the Traditional Ranch style, Contemporary Ranch houses exhibit
abstract geometries and contemporary details that are most often seen in Mid‐
Century Modern architecture. Post‐and‐beam construction was common;
carports often took the place of garages; exterior walls tended to be clad in a
more simplistic palette composed of stucco and wood; roofs were of a lower
pitch and were often more expressive or flamboyant in form; and ornament
tended to be more abstract in character and was applied more judiciously.
Oriental and Polynesian‐inspired motifs were often incorporated into the design
of Contemporary Ranch houses. Though less prominent than the Traditional
Ranch style, Contemporary Ranch single‐family residences are scattered
throughout postwar subdivisions in Arcadia.
Figure 42. Example of
a single‐family
residence in the
Contemporary Ranch
style (ARG, 2015)
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 86
Character‐defining features of Contemporary Ranch style architecture include:
One‐story configuration (two‐story Ranch houses are rare)
Asymmetrical composition with one or more projecting wings
Horizontal massing and abstract form
Post‐and‐beam construction
Low‐pitched gabled or hipped roof, sometimes with expressionist
qualities
Combination of wall cladding materials, generally including stucco and
wood siding
Windows and doors are generally treated as void elements
Abstract ornamental details
Incorporation of Oriental and Polynesian motifs is common
Carports are common and often take the place of an attached garage
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 87
Subsequent History: 1971 - Present
Arcadia’s post‐1970 development has seen some of the most dramatic changes to
the city’s built environment in its history. Commercial districts saw
redevelopment resulting in larger, denser blocks of retail occupants as well as
strip malls. Significant new additions included the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall
(now expanded as the Westfield Santa Anita) at the southwest corner of the
Santa Anita Park property in 1975. The area which once held hundreds of
barracks housing Japanese American internees now holds a large shopping mall
designed by Gruen Associates, surrounded by broad expanses of parking lots.
Residential development has been particularly dynamic, especially in the years
since about 1990. Portions of the city’s residential areas have been redeveloped
for denser occupation, with multiple dwelling units from condominiums to cul‐de‐
sacs of single‐family houses being constructed on extant large parcels as well as
combined parcels that once held one or two small houses. Even Anita Baldwin’s
Anoakia estate fell to the march of progress, sold in 1999 and demolished for the
development of a gated housing community. There have been significant changes
to many single‐family neighborhoods as well, with the demolition of many
smaller, older homes to make way for the construction of large houses that
maximize their lot coverage. Even after the subdivision of many of the city’s larger
residential parcels into smaller lots during the 1950s and 1960s, some properties
in Arcadia retained relatively large lots conducive to the construction of more and
larger buildings. While these changes to the built environment are evident across
the city, they are most visible in the southern portion of Arcadia; as the northern
neighborhoods tend to have homeowners’ associations with more stringent
design review standards (and as many of them had larger lots and houses to begin
with), modern infill in the north is often more compatible with the existing
buildings in terms of scale, setbacks, and style.
Much of Arcadia’s new residential and commercial development is linked to an
influx of new residents and investors, primarily from China. The Asian population
of Arcadia increased from 103 people in 1970 to 1,760 in 1980, reflecting a
region‐wide migration of first‐generation Americans from all parts of Asia to the
San Gabriel Valley.130 By 1989, Arcadia had an estimated 6,000 Chinese residents,
around 12% of the population.131 As of 2010, Arcadia’s population was
approximately 60% Asian, with the majority being of Chinese descent.132 The
once‐sleepy, semi‐rural town has been transformed into a dynamic destination
130 John Haecki, “Planner Outlines Population Trends,” Arcadia Highlander, 15 January 1986; Marina
Milligan, “Will Increase of Asians Stir Friction in Arcadia?,” Arcadia Tribune, 26 April 1989.
131 Marina Milligan, “Will Increase of Asians Stir Friction in Arcadia?,” Arcadia Tribune, 26 April 1989.
132 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Quick Facts: Arcadia, CA,” accessed September 2015,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602462.html.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 88
for residents and visitors alike, with every urban amenity available within a
community still characterized by its single‐family residential context.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 89
IV. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books, Manuscripts, Periodicals, and Other
Published Sources
Arcadia Centennial Historical Committee. Arcadia: Snapshots of History. Arcadia:
Arcadia Centennial Historical Committee, 2003.
Arcadia Historical Society. Arcadia. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008.
Arcadia Tribune, v.d.
Beckwith, Brainerd Kellogg. The Story of Santa Anita: the Great Race Place. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles Turf Club, 1973.
Bowen, Jeffrey K. The Neighborhoods of Arcadia. In Visions of Arcadia: A
Centennial Anthology (Gary A. Kovacic, editor). Arcadia: City of Arcadia and Gary
A. Kovacic, 2003, pp. 322‐327.
Burton, Jeffrey F., Mary M. Farrell, Florence B. Lord, and Richard W. Lord.
Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II Japanese American
Relocation Sites. Tucson: National Park Service Western Archeological and
Conservation Center, 1999.
“Business Survey Plans Drawn.” Los Angeles Times, 28 June 1951.
Eberly, Gordon S. Arcadia: City of the Santa Anita. Claremont, CA: Saunders Press,
1953.
Finley, Harold M. “Final Vast Tract of Baldwin Barony Sold: Purchase of 1038
Famous Acres Rounds Out Great Homesite Project.” Los Angeles Times, 27
September 1936.
Haecki, John. “Planner Outlines Population Trends,” Arcadia Highlander, 15
January 1986.
Hawthorne, Christopher. “How Arcadia is Remaking Itself as a Magnet for Chinese
Money.” Los Angeles Times, 3 September 2014.
Henderson, George L. California and the Fictions of Capital. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 90
“Ideals Realized at Santa Anita: Distinctive Community of New Homes Developed
on Historic Old Rancho.” Los Angeles Times, 1 February 1942.
Kovacic, Gary A. (editor). Visions of Arcadia: A Centennial Anthology. Arcadia: City
of Arcadia and Gary A. Kovacic, 2003.
Kovacic, Gary A. More Visions of Arcadia: A Community Anthology. Arcadia: City of
Arcadia and Gary A. Kovacic, 2013.
Kroeber, Alfred L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of
American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1925; reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Libby, Carol G. Faces and Footprints in Arcadia’s History. Arcadia: Carol G. Libby,
2014.
Luke, John. 100 Years of Arcadia. Arcadia, CA: Core Media Group, Inc., 2003.
McAdam, Pat and Sandy Snider. Arcadia: Where Ranch and City Meet. Arcadia,
CA: Friends of the Arcadia Public Library, 1981.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
McCawley, William. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles.
Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press and Novato, CA: Ballena Press, 1996.
McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Layton: Gibbs
Smith, 1946.
Miller, Richard E. “By Gads! This Is Paradise”: the Story of Arcadia, California. San
Diego: Home Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1978.
Milligan, Marina. “Will Increase of Asians Stir Friction in Arcadia?” Arcadia
Tribune, 26 April 1989.
“Models Finished in Arcadia Tract.” Los Angeles Times, 22 February 1942.
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Preservation Brief 17:
Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an
Aid to Preserving their Character.” Prepared by Lee H. Nelson, Sept. 1988.
Rasmussen, Cecilia. “Their Story Inspired ‘Ramona’.” Los Angeles Times, 5
December 1999.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 91
Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Canada: Westview Press, 2001.
“Santa Anita Park.” National Register nomination. Prepared by Historic Resources
Group, 2006.
“Serbian Orthodox Church.” Arcadia Tribune, 31 December 1964.
Snider, Sandra Lee. Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin: California Visionary. Los
Angeles: The Stairwell Group, 1987.
Spalding, George H. The First Twenty‐five Years: A History of The Los Angeles State
and County Arboretum. Arcadia, CA: The California Arboretum Foundation, 1973.
Starr, Kevin. Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1990.
“Towne Center Street Job Readied,” Arcadia Tribune, 27 December 1964.
Other Sources
Arcadia Public Library Special Collections, various primary sources.
Burton, Jeffrey F. et al. Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II
Japanese American Relocation Sites. Tucson: National Park Service Western
Archeological and Conservation Center, 1999. In Konrad Linke, “Santa Anita
(detention facility).” Densho Encyclopedia. Accessed September 2015.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Santa_Anita_%28detention_facility%29/.
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources. “Architecture and Designed
Landscapes, Revival Architecture Derived from Mediterranean and Indigenous
Themes.” Final draft, 2010.
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources. “Architecture and Engineering,
Arts and Crafts Movement: 1895‐1929.” 2010.
DeSoto, Andrea. “Biographies of Notable California Indians: Victoria (Bartolomea)
Reid.” University of California, Irvine. 2006. Accessed September 2015.
http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/tcthorne/notablecaliforniaindians/victoriareid.
htm.
Arcadia Historic Context Statement DRAFT January 11, 2016
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 92
Historic Resources Group, LLC and kornrandolph, Inc. Cultural Landscape Report
and Treatment Plan for the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden.
Prepared for the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden, 2014.
Imboden, Robert. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form for California
Historical Landmark 368, Hugo Reid Adobe. Prepared by Kelly Sutherlin McLeod
Architecture, Inc., January 2014.
Linke, Konrad. “Santa Anita (detention facility).” Densho Encyclopedia. Accessed
September 2015.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Santa_Anita_%28detention_facility%29/.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Santa Anita Park.” Accessed September 2015.
https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/santa‐anita‐park.
“NETR Online Historic Aerials.” NETR Online, 1938, 1946, 1952, 1954, 1967, 1980,
1994, 2002, 2010, and 2012. Accessed September 2015.
http://www.historicaerials.com.
ProQuest Newsstand. “Historical Los Angeles Times.” Accessed September 2015.
http://search.proquest.com.ezpoxy.lapl.org/.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps (1908, 1924, and 1924‐1932). Accessed
September 2015 via Los Angeles Public Library. http://www.lapl.org.
The Cultural Landscape Foundation. “Tommy Tomson.” Accessed September
2015.
https://tclf.org/pioneer/tommy‐tomson.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. “Quick Facts: Arcadia, CA.” Accessed September 2015.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602462.html.
Historic Preservation
Fact Sheet
Fact Sheet
Draft Historic
Preservation
Ordinance
Page | 2
Page | 3
INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the City retained Architectural Resources Group (ARG), a qualified historic preservation
consultant, to prepare the City’s first comprehensive Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources
Survey of buildings, structures, objects, and sites that were 45 years of age or older at the time of the
survey. More recently, as a result of this work, the City released a Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
for public review and comment. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a framework to protect
certain structures and resources identified through the Survey that have historic merit or are important
to the heritage or history of the City.
Following its release, the draft Ordinance raised a number of questions, and it was clear from public
comments at community meetings and in general that there is a lot of confusion and concern about this
project. As a result, the City decided to develop this Fact Sheet to respond to many of the questions
raised related to the Draft Ordinance, and what it may mean for residents, and the City in general, if
adopted.
In the following pages, questions and concerns have been grouped by topic and straightforward, factual
responses have been provided. In addition, a section has been provided at the end of the document that
lists comments that were made during recent meetings.
This Fact Sheet, as well as the Historic Context Statement, Historic Resources Survey, the draft
Ordinance, and many other resources, can be found on the City’s website at:
www.ArcadiaCA.gov/historicpreservation
Page | 4
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Why is the City pursuing a historic preservation project?
Response: The City Council originally voted to develop a Historic Resources Survey to find out
what historic resources exist in the City, both in residential and in commercial areas. Without
going through an official survey, buildings could be demolished and removed without a real
understanding of the historic context and potential historic value of these buildings. Simply put,
the City wanted to know what buildings we have that may be historically significant and
potentially worth preserving.
Can the City just stop this effort at the Survey level?
Response: Yes, the City could simply accept the survey as an informational document and not
move to the next step of adopting an Ordinance.
Has an Ordinance been approved?
Response: No, once the survey was completed, the City Council then voted to draft a Historic
Preservation Ordinance to establish a method of protecting the resources and potential historic
districts identified in the Survey. The City Council felt it was important to take this next step to
be able to review a new Ordinance, but nothing has been adopted yet. We are now in the stage
of reviewing the draft Ordinance to see if it is something the City Council wants to adopt.
Do our neighboring cities have Ordinances like this?
Response: Many of our surrounding cities have Historic Preservation Ordinances. Local
examples include San Gabriel, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Monrovia. It is the right of all
cities to draft Ordinances related to land use, preservation, and the regulation of buildings and
development. This is the same process any City goes through when zoning codes change or
building codes are updated; there is nothing unique about this process. That being said, the
current Historic Preservation Ordinance is a DRAFT. The City has not voted on any formal
preservation at this point and there is no timeline currently for doing so.
Isn’t the City too late to adopt an Ordinance like this?
Response: There have been a number of comments through the process that the City is “25 to
35 years too late” to conduct such a process, since many buildings have been demolished over
the years. While it is true that much demolition has taken place, and the City has certainly
Page | 5
changed over time, there is no time limit on attempting to preserve existing structures that are
important to Arcadia’s history.
How was the Survey conducted?
Response: The survey was conducted by historic preservation professionals from Architectural
Resources Group (ARG), a preservation firm based in Pasadena with 38 years of experience in
this field. Properties were viewed from the street or public right-of-way. Approximately 16,800
parcels were surveyed, with the exception of those properties that were built after 1970 (at
least 45 years of age at the time of the survey).
What is the significance of a building being 50 years of age (or at least 45 years at the time of the
survey)?
Response: This time threshold of 50 years old (or at least 45 years of age at the time of Survey)
was used because it is a benchmark set by the National Park Service for properties under
consideration for the National Register of Historic Places. Below is the language from National
Register Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”:
"The National Register Criteria for Evaluation exclude properties that achieved significance
within the past fifty years unless they are of exceptional importance. Fifty years is a general
estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This
consideration guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and
ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places."
How many potentially historic buildings or resources did the Survey find?
Response: As a result of the survey, a total of 189 potential historic resources were identified as
being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register
of Historical Resources, and/or as a local historic landmark or district. In addition, a total of
eleven potential historic districts were determined to be potentially eligible. If all potentially
contributing buildings within these districts are included, there are a total of 1,957 potentially
eligible buildings.
What is the difference between the “national” register, the “state” register, and a “local” historic
landmark?
Response: The National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical
Resources are very similar in terms of the four criteria under which a property may be
significant. However, the National Register imposes a higher threshold with regard to eligibility
(why a property is significant) as well as integrity (how intact a property is and how well it is able
Page | 6
to convey its significance). Similarly, properties that may be eligible as local historic landmarks
may not rise to the level of significance or retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for the
National or California Registers.
Established state and federal criteria are used to determine potential eligibility. Those criteria
can be found on the Office of Historic Preservation website at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%2
0update.pdf
So, of the 189 potential historic resources, how many are eligible at the national or state level, and
how many are locally eligible?
Response: Below are the number of
individual properties and historic districts
and their levels of eligibility. Some of the
properties are eligible for listing at the
national and state level, while others are
only eligible at the local level. Of the 189
potential resources, 166 of them are
individual buildings (128 residential, 17
commercial, and 21 institutional).
Potentially Eligible Individual Properties:
54 properties (national, state, and local
level)
25 properties (state and local level)
84 properties (local level only)
3 properties (not evaluated – not
visible/more research needed)
Potentially Eligible Non-Building Resources:
4 resources (national, state, and local level)
8 resources (local level only)
Potentially Eligible Historic Districts:
1 district – L.A. County Arboretum
(national, state, and local level)
8 districts – All the residential districts (state and local level)
2 districts – S. 1st Avenue-Bonita Street Commercial and S. Baldwin Avenue-Fairview Commercial
– (local level only).
Page | 7
Could the City Council only preserve buildings that are eligible for state and national protection?
Response: Yes, the City Council could adopt an Ordinance that only preserved the resources
and districts that are eligible for listing at the state and national level. If this was the case, 54
individual properties would be protected, four (4) non-building resources, and one (1) potential
historic district. This is an option that the City Council could consider.
What has the public outreach been to date?
Response: Following the completion of the Historic Resources Survey in July of 2016, the survey
results were shared with the community during community meetings on October 13 and
December 1, 2016.
Following the community meetings, the City Council held a study session on February 1, 2017, to
consider the comments to date and the Survey results, and to determine the next step in the
process. At that time, City staff and ARG were directed to prepare a Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance in order to establish criteria and procedures for designation, preservation, and
maintenance of the City’s historic resources.
After the Draft Ordinance was created and distributed, two additional community meetings
were held, on November 2 and 13, 2017, to discuss the draft Ordinance. These meetings were
very well attended and most of the questions and comments in this Fact Sheet came from these
meetings. Notification of the meetings was sent to everyone who has a property that was
identified in the Survey (both individually and as part of a potential Historic District) as well as
those who had attended previous meetings on this subject. In addition, an ad was published in
the Arcadia Weekly newspaper, posted on social media (Twitter), and in the City’s Newsletter.
An active website has been maintained throughout the process
(http://ArcadiaCA.gov/historicpreservation ).
This Fact Sheet is the latest effort to get information to the public on this subject. There will be
additional opportunities to provide input as the process continues.
What has been the cost of the Survey and Ordinance work?
Response: The City has contracted for a total of $140,000 for this project with ARG. To date, the
City has paid $128,000.
Page | 8
REGULATIONS AND PROCESSES WITHIN THE DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
I own one of the 14,843 properties that were not found to be historic, would the Ordinance affect me
at all?
Response: No, the proposed Ordinance would only apply to those buildings and resources that
were either identified through the Survey as potentially individually eligible or as contributors to
a potential historic district.
I own one of the potentially eligible structures (there are a total of 1,957 buildings including that have
been identified as either an eligible building OR a contributor to a potential Historic District). Would
that mean I could not do anything to my house if the Ordinance is adopted?
Response: No. First of all, the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance does not regulate any work
proposed on the inside of the house. For most work on the outside of the house, it would need
to be reviewed by an architectural historian and found to be consistent with the historic nature
of the structure. So, it would need to go through an approval process, but additions and
modifications to existing structures are certainly possible and expected over time. It should also
be noted that minor exterior work such as re-roofing or foundation improvements, etc., would
not need to be reviewed by an architectural historian.
How can I petition or argue the status code that was given to the house?
Response: The status codes assigned to properties on the Survey inventory are specifically
related to evaluations completed through survey work and are intended to provide the City with
information regarding the potential level of significance of a property. Because the status codes
indicate a property has been identified through the Survey and do not result in a property’s
designation, 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. The cost
of this process averages $1,500 to $2,500.
My house has been placed on the City’s list of potential historic resources. Is there a process to
remove my property from the list or to “opt out”?
Response:
The Historic Resources Survey list is an informational tool for the City to understand where
potential historic resources are located in the City. Being on the list does not result in automatic
designation. Because the inventory is a list of survey findings (not a list of designated
Page | 9
properties), there is currently no mechanism for opting off or on the list, but the City is still
considering how to use this information.
Currently, any homeowner in Arcadia who owns a house that is 50 years or older needs to
comply with the City’s existing demolition review process before they can demolish the building.
This process ensures that the City is in compliance with state environmental laws, and nothing
about this process will change with the adoption of the Ordinance. Through this process, an
architectural historian could provide a detailed evaluation of a building that was listed as a
potential historic resource. It is possible that through this evaluation, additional information
could be obtained that could eliminate the possibility of the home being considered historic.
Why are Ranch-style homes considered potentially historic?
There were many comments from the public questioning why Arcadia’s prevalent Ranch style
homes of 50 years of age or more would be considered historic. While those who commented
could understand how 1920’s homes of a certain style or structures such as the Santa Anita
Racetrack Grandstand could be considered historic, they did not place 1950’s Ranch homes in
this same category. The Ranch style is significant in the development and evolution of this City.
Although the Ranch architectural style is not unique to Arcadia, many of Arcadia’s
neighborhoods are outstanding collections of this architectural style; certainly some of the best
in Southern California. These houses do not tend to be eligible for historic designation by
themselves. However, as part of a neighborhood (and as a contributor to a potential historic
district), they are significant for conveying an important part of Arcadia’s development history.
If I want to add an addition to my potentially eligible (non-designated) house that faces the public
right-of-way, what is the process?
Response: Any addition of square footage that is visible from the public right-of-way is
considered a major alteration under the draft Ordinance. Under the draft Ordinance, properties
that were determined potentially individually eligible through the Survey would need to
undergo a more in-depth evaluation by a qualified historian or architectural historian before any
major alterations could be undertaken. If the property is formally determined eligible through a
more detailed evaluation, the proposed alteration to the property would have to be evaluated
by a qualified historian or architectural historian to ensure the proposed change does not alter
the historic significance of the building.
If the property owner still chooses to carry out an alteration that has been determined to impact
the historic significance of the building, the City may withhold approval of the project up to 180
days to identify project alternatives. Ultimately, it is possible to complete the alteration.
What does it mean to “nominate” a property or district as historic?
Page | 10
Response: Nominating a property or district is the first step in the historic designation process.
If an individual or group nominates a resource, they are proposing that the Commission and
ultimately, the City Council, consider designating the resource a historic landmark or district.
However, just because a property or district is nominated does not mean the property or
district will be formally designated or even considered for designation. If an owner of an
individual property does not consent to the designation of his/her property, in nearly all
circumstances, the designation process will end with the nomination and the property will not
be designated.
How is owner consent being handled? In other words, if an individual other than the owner
nominates my house and I object to the nomination, what is the process to ensure my property rights
are not being taken away?
Response: Under the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, any person or group has the ability
to nominate a property for historic landmark or district designation. However, with the
exception of very rare circumstances, a property cannot be designated without the consent of
the owner.
Under extremely rare circumstances, the draft Ordinance proposes that the City Council shall
have the power to revoke an owner’s objection to historic landmark or district designation if, by
a majority vote, it determines that the designation constitutes a social benefit to Arcadia’s
citizens that outweighs the private burden of designation, and designation does not damage the
property owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefits designation provides to the
community. This provision was included in the draft Ordinance to protect the City’s most
exceptional historic resources.
Comments were raised at the public meetings that a majority vote is not enough and that this
power should only be allowed through a “super majority” vote of 4-1 or even through a
unanimous (5-0) vote. These are options that the City Council will consider.
Can the preservation process be purely voluntary?
Response: Yes, the City could ultimately approve an Ordinance that establishes a purely
voluntary process for designating historic resources. In this instance, designation of an individual
building or a historic district would only be approved with owner consent. However, the City
must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which safeguards against
negative impacts to eligible AND designated historic resources. Compliance with CEQA is not
voluntary, and the City’s existing demolition review process has been established to comply with
environmental law.
Page | 11
What should a realtor be telling a prospective buyer about the potential regulations?
The City underwent a Citywide Historic Resources Survey back in 2015, and as a result of the
Survey the City Council directed ARG along with City staff to draft a Historic Preservation
Ordinance to provide guidance regarding the treatment of Arcadia’s historic resources. No
Ordinance has yet been adopted but a draft is available for review and comment. The
prospective buyer should be informed that no actual designation results directly from the survey
conducted by ARG. In the meantime, if a property owner wanted to demolish their house, they
would still go through the existing Certificate of Demolition process, which requires a full
evaluation and environmental review of any property that is 50 years of age or older. This
process has been in place for many years.
For the latest information, prospective buyers should visit the City’s webpage on this topic –
www.ArcadiaCa.gov/historicpreservation. At this time, no hearing dates have been scheduled to
consider the draft Ordinance.
What is the penalty for demolishing a historic home without going through the proper process?
Response: Any person who fails to obtain the proper approvals before altering or demolishing a
historic resource without a permit may be subject to significant penalties. Under the draft
Ordinance, the City could issue a temporary moratorium on development of the property for a
period of up to two years. This would mean no construction would be allowed on the lot during
this time. It is also possible that the City Attorney could file an action that would require, where
possible, the complete or partial restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of any historic
resource that has been demolished, partially demolished, altered, or partially altered without
following the appropriate process.
Page | 12
PROPERTIES WITHIN A POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
What is the difference between “Contributors” and “Non-contributors” within a Historic District?
Response: A Contributor means any building, structure, object, site, sign or planning features
within a historic district that contributes to the district’s historic, cultural, or architectural
significance.
A Non-Contributor means any building, structure, object, site, sign, or planning features within a
historic district that does not meet the criteria for eligibility, does not contribute to the district’s
historic, cultural, or architectural significance, and is therefore not a historic resource. If a
property is a “non-contributor” then it is not subject to the regulations or processes under the
Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, but may be subject to design review.
How were potential Historic Districts determined?
Response: The Survey identified 11 potentially eligible historic districts. Eight of these districts
comprise of residential buildings. The majority of the residential historic districts are single-
family residential neighborhoods significant for their association with patterns of development
related to the subdivision of the last of the Baldwin Family lands prior to World War II. Most of
these districts were also found eligible for their architectural merit, containing significant
concentrations of Ranch-style residences.
What are the requirements to actually form a Historic District?
Response: In order for a historic district to be designated, the draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance proposes that at least 60% of the properties within the proposed district must
contribute to the historic significance of the district. It is important to note that a potential
district does not have to be proposed as shown in the Historic Resources Survey; it could be a
smaller area than what has been identified as potentially eligible by the Survey.
Assuming that at least 60% of the properties within a potential district are contributors to that
district, the next required step would be to obtain written consent of 75% of the property
owners within the proposed district. No historic districts will be designated without the written
consent of at least 75% of owners within the district. If a proposed district meets these two
thresholds, it would then be reviewed by the City Council for official adoption.
Why did the City recommend 75% as the minimum percentage of owners within a district who need to
approve of the district? What happens to the other 25% of owners who do not want to be a part of
the district?
Page | 13
Response: Many of the surrounding cities only require a simple majority (i.e. 50% +1) of owners
within the district to consent to historic district designation. The City Council felt that it should
be a higher percentage, and felt a 75% owner approval was more appropriate for Arcadia. This is
a very high threshold to meet. The overwhelming majority of cities require 50-60% owner
consent for a historic district. We are not aware of any local cities that use a 75% threshold,
although some national examples include Stratford, Connecticut, Council Bluffs, Iowa, and
Jefferson City, Missouri.
In the scenario where 75% of the owners agree with designation and 25% do not, the 75%
majority would override the other owners who do not consent to designation. This is the way it
always is with democratic processes, such as elections.
Several commenters at public meetings asked if the threshold for approval could be raised to
100% consent. The answer is yes; the required percentage of owners signing on with consent
can be raised or lowered as part of a final Ordinance based on the City Council’s decision.
Page | 14
PROPERTY VALUES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
If the City Council adopts the Ordinance, will it decrease my property value and has the City
conducted any studies on how the Ordinance would affect overall City property tax revenue?
Response: The City has not conducted studies to determine how the adoption of the Ordinance
may affect property taxes. However, the adoption of an ordinance in and of itself should not
have an impact on property values since an ordinance merely establishes a process for treating
historic resources, and does not result in the designation of any properties. Several studies have
been conducted throughout the country regarding how historic designation has impacted
property values, and the majority of studies determined property values increased in designated
historic districts (http://www.achp.gov/economic-designation.html). However, there is no way
of knowing how the historic designation process will affect properties in Arcadia. If a property is
valued purely for the value of the land and redevelopment potential of the lot, rather than the
value of the home on the lot, it is likely that the overall property value of that particular lot
would decrease with a historic designation. This is especially true in many Arcadia
neighborhoods, where the original homes are substantially smaller than the maximum sizes that
might be allowed on a lot if it were redeveloped.
Will the City reimburse property owners if property values decline as a result of this Ordinance?
Response: No. Reductions and increases in property values are the result of a wide range of
factors, only one of which may be new regulations. Property values are also impacted by the
overall economy and housing market, buyer desires and expectations, overall climate for
development, and many other factors. Although the adoption of a Historic Preservation
Ordinance in and of itself should not have an impact, historic designation could certainly impact
the amount a buyer chooses to pay for a certain property. Again, this comes down to the
individual circumstance and the buyer’s reasons for purchasing the home. But, the adoption of
the Ordinance itself should not have a direct correlation to property values.
Some changes in regulation directly benefit property owners (such as increases in residential
density or reductions in parking requirements) but the City does not expect to retain any of this
benefit.
Won’t the cost to maintain homes increase for historic homes because of the expectation of repairs or
use of specific materials?
Response: It is possible that costs to maintain homes in a historically appropriate manner could
exceed typical maintenance costs for an older home. This could also be true of any requirements
to use certain materials or features that may not be needed with a non-historic home. This is,
however, dependent on the types of improvements considered, and would vary widely from
project to project. It is also possible that maintaining features may be less expensive than
replacing those features.
Page | 15
MILLS ACT
What is the Mills Act Program and how does it work?
Response: The Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program allows qualifying property owners to
receive a potential tax reduction in exchange for the rehabilitation, restoration, and
maintenance of their historic property. Although it is a statewide program, it is administered by
local governments. If the City chooses to adopt a Mills Act program, Mills Act contracts may be
available to owners of designated historic landmarks and contributing properties in designated
historic districts. A Mills Act contract typically results in a reduction in property taxes of between
30-70%. The term of the contract is 10 years.
How many participants can there be in the Mills Act Program?
Response: It has not yet been determined if the City will participate in the program, but if the
City Council chooses to participate, the City Council will determine on an annual basis how many
Mills Act contracts it will accept and may set a financial cap on the program. Each City
administers its Mills Act Program differently. It is likely that the City of Arcadia would start its
Mills Act participation as a “pilot” program, accepting a small number of properties into the
program for the first several years. This would be done to monitor the time and staffing
demands, interest in the program, and financial impact of administering the program.
What would the impact of the Mills Act Program be on City Revenue?
Response: The Mills Act Program can result in less property taxes being paid. However, since the
City receives approximately 9% of every property tax dollar, the impact of the Mills Act on City
Revenue is not a dollar for dollar comparison. All relevant taxing entities would take less on a tax
bill for a property in the program. That being said, as mentioned in the previous response, the
City would likely start participation in the Mills Act Program as a pilot project, and would
monitor the financial impact carefully for the first several years, to determine the cost of
participation. It is not anticipated that participation would lead to a substantial impact on City
revenue.
Where can I go for more information or if I have questions or comments?
Response: This Fact Sheet, as well as the Historic Context Statement, Historic Resources Survey,
the Draft Ordinance itself, and many other resources, can be found on the City’s website at:
www.ArcadiaCA.gov/historicpreservation
Page | 16
Also, if you would like to leave a comment or ask a question, please send us an email at
Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or call the Planning Division at 626-574-5423.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following comments were made by residents and the public during the course of the two most
recent Community Meetings, on November 2 and 13, 2017. These comments have been grouped into
themes to provide a snapshot of the types of issues raised by the public at these meetings.
Property Rights and Property Values
The most common theme mentioned by attendees was concern over potential impacts of the Ordinance
on property rights and property values. The following quotes represent the points raised by speakers.
• “The City recently approved a floor area ratio and other development standards that reduced
the size of the buildable area on the lot. This reduced property value. A new Historic Ordinance
will do the same thing.”
• “If this goes through, it will decrease my property value and now I won’t be able to add onto my
house. There is no way this new process would have a positive impact on a property owner.”
• “Our home is our biggest lifetime investment. This will impact our livelihood.”
• “Owning a potential historic house will cost a property owner more money for any repairs.”
• “It should be up to the property owner to have their house listed.”
• “Arcadia is not the Wild West. We have existing regulations and you can’t do whatever you want
to do now. It is important to preserve what we have in town.”
City May Lose Tax Revenue
Concerns were expressed by speakers about the possibility that if an Ordinance is passed, there may be
an impact on tax revenue and City finances. This was in response to a perception that property values
will decrease as well as participation in the Mills Act program. While some speakers felt that the Mills
Act participation would be a benefit to them and a good incentive, many other speakers felt that Mills
Act participation would have a negative impact on City finances. Quotes that reflect this theme are as
follows:
• “The City will lose tax revenue if this process goes through. This is way too late in the game, and
the long term impact could have a financial impact on the City. This historic preservation
ordinance will slow down development and bring in less tax revenue for the City.”
Page | 17
• “Currently, the City is dealing with a budget issue. To ensure the economic status of the City and
the budget does not decline, the City should not create a process that would reduce its
revenue. Instead, apply the funds on education where it matters most.”
• “The purpose of the Mills Act is to help owners with their repair cost and maintenance because
it is usually higher than owning a house that is not. So it is not really a benefit since materials
usually cost more to keep the house intact. People seem to be missing the point.”
City Should Focus on Other Priorities
There were a number of comments raised related to other topics and priorities that the City should be
working on instead of Historic Preservation. Most of the commenters who spoke on this topic felt that
public safety and education were the most important items of concern.
• “This Ordinance is 25 years too late. Put time and effort into other topics.”
• “The City should stop looking at the past and what they didn’t preserve, but toward the
future. How can the City grow and flourish if we are trying to preserve everything?”
• “The City should focus on issues that the residents care about and spend its money on education
and safety rather than on historic preservation. That is why they bought a house in Arcadia. Not
for historic preservation.”
What Should Be Preserved?
Several speakers stated that they felt the Ordinance was important and necessary. Others felt that
preserving some resources was important but not as extensive a list as what was in the Ordinance.
There was significant debate about the “value” of Ranch-style homes.
• “This Ordinance is a long time in coming. It is important for the City to take steps to protect its
rich history.”
• “I’m not against historic preservation, but we shouldn’t preserve all the resources that are on
the list.”
• “The City Council should start off from a smaller scale by preserving only the iconic
structures. Then expand the list if the owners want to be a part of this new process.”
• “Ranch-style homes have become less and less significant. This process is encouraging
homeowners to hurry up and demolish their home before the new process goes into effect.”
Page | 18
• “Ranch-style homes are all about outdoor, “California” living. That is important to preserve.”
Process of Designation
There were a number of comments on the technical aspects of the Ordinance, many of which are
responded to in the Fact Sheet. Many such comments had to do with how buildings would be
designated, and who had the authority to do that.
• “In terms of the designation process, I don’t like the regulations that allow the City Council to
have the sole authority to designate a property or district without the owner’s permission.”
• “In terms of the districts, it should require that all the property owner’s sign-off, and the City
Council can’t override the vote. There should be a process for a homeowner to override the City
Council’s decision if they don’t want their house designated.”
• “If the process goes through, the City should have a separate body to review the cases and not
the Planning Commission, unless they are qualified.”
Informing Residents of the Draft Ordinance
There were a number of comments made about getting better translation and providing information to
residents. Along those lines, this Fact Sheet is an attempt to provide good information that is translated
accurately. In addition, there will be more opportunities to be involved with this project as it moves
forward.
Page | 19
Comments Received from
Public - Planning Commission
Meeting
POLITIS & 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
From: Roy Mc Meen [
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:28 PM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Subject: Historic Preservation
I support the ordinance for Historic Preservation.
Sent from my iPhone
January 8, 2019
To the Powers that be in the Arcadia City Council and Planning Commission:
We are the owners, for the past 27 years, of one of the 176 properties being
proposed as an Historic Landmark. We strongly protest this designation and do
not want it.
Our home is not “original” anymore, and hasn’t been since well before we
bought it 27 years ago. At some point in time, the original, rectangularly
shaped front door, was replaced with an arched door which, obviously,
necessitated cutting into and doing stucco repair on the front of the house.
We also know that the iron balcony railing on the front of the house is not
original.
With the house being 97 years old this year, God only knows what else has
been changed on it over the years. The file at the Planning Department at City
Hall contains almost no information; we looked years ago just to see what it
and the surrounding neighborhood might have looked like.
What the City of Arcadia is trying to do is akin to closing the barn door after the
horse has gotten out. If they wanted to preserve anything of the character of
“old” Arcadia, they needed to have done so years ago when there was
actually “character” left to preserve.
Arcadia does not have, and has no possible chance to have, a “bungalow
heaven” such as Pasadena has. Nor do they have quaint streets with cute
Craftsman homes as they do in South Pasadena and Monrovia.
What Arcadia does have is a killer school district that Chinese families will pay
huge amounts of money to live in. This is not a racist statement; it is simply a
statement of fact. The Chinese families who move here do not like “character”
homes. They want BIG and they want modern because more often than not
multiple generations live together in these homes.
Our home sits on a lot of almost 29,000 square feet. The only value our home
has anymore is our huge, flat lot in an R-1 zone. We have been asked to sell it
by numerous private parties, developers and real estate agents since the day
we moved in 27 years ago in June. For all cash, and a LOT of it, sight unseen in
most cases, no inspection, no restrictions, etc.
And we have said NO for 27 years because A) we LOVE our home, and B) we
have two daughters, 25 and 22 years old who were raised in this house. This
house will be passed on to them and we want THEM to have control of our
biggest asset, not the City.
We are 67 and 65 years old. When we are dead, if our daughters have to sell
this property, they should have the absolute right to do so for the highest price
possible. The City has not paid to maintain this structure and this huge lot. WE
have.
This “historic” designation would severely impact the value of our property. The
chance of anyone other than a Chinese family being interested in purchasing
it, whether now or later, is slim and slim just left town. Every person who has
offered to purchase this property for the past 27 YEARS has been Chinese or a
developer represented by a Chinese real estate agent. And they only offered
to purchase it so they could tear it down and build on the lot.
If any of the owners of the other 175 properties want to have their property
designated, please help them to do that, BUT LEAVE OUR PROPERTY ALONE.
The City of Arcadia, for whatever reason, decided MANY years ago to allow
the wholesale destruction of our neighborhoods with the building of these
huge, soulless mansions.
It is unfair to the owners of these “designated” properties, and too late to have
any relevance to the City, to suddenly decide to pick out 176 properties to
“save” as “historically” significant to the development of this city. Arcadia
missed the chance to preserve its’ history many years ago; 176 properties out of
THOUSANDS is useless and not representative of the development of Arcadia.
Worry about saving Santa Anita Race Track and the Arboretum for future
generations, and leave our property alone.
Thomas and Richele Duffy
From: Sophia Hung
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Mailbox ‐ Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: Concerned Arcadian my property is on the HPO list
Arcadia Planning Commission and City Council,
I oppose the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) proposed by the City of
Arcadia dated in October 2018.
For example, the house in Arcadia as below link is very similar (or same type) with my
house, older than my house but is not on the list and this property cannot be designated
without the consent of the owner.
Every owner in Arcadia should have equal right and freedom to choose, not to be
reduced or eliminated by the government if we object to the designation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
https://goo.gl/maps/vHqFR1teiwS2
Sophia Hung
From: Derek Hsu
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 8:01 AM
To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>
Cc: Uncle Henry >; Henry Hsu >
Subject: Owner Objection to HPO
Dear City Council,
We received a letter saying that our home at 1065 Singing Wood Dr, Arcadia, CA 91006 is on
the list of 176 properties designated to be registered as Historic Landmarks.
WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT OUR HOME TO BE ON THAT LIST. THIS IS A
CLEAR VIOLATION OF OUR HOMEOWNER RIGHTS AND WILL CAUSE
UNNECESSARY FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC STRAIN ON MY FAMILY AND MY
PARENTS WHO ARE AT RETIREMENT AGE.
We have no issue with other homeowners who desire this designation but the negative
consequences on our family and our family's future are too great for us to consider this. This is
completely UNETHICAL to not allow us to have a choice in choosing this designation.
Please remove this designation from our home immediately!!
Regards,
Derek Hsu
Resident at 1065 Singing Wood Dr, Arcadia, CA 91006
Proposed Fees and Incentives
EXHIBIT “A”
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
CURRENT
FEE
COST OF
SERVICE
PROPOSED
FEE
FEE
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL
REVENUE
CHANGE
DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
Certificate of Appropriateness
(Major)
Certificate of Appropriateness
(Minor)
Designation of a Historic District
Designation of a Local
Landmark
Mills Act
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,630.66
$907.55
$2,547.62
$1,846.92
$1,571.86
$1,600
$900
$2,500
$1,800
$1,500
$1,600
$900
$2,500
$1,800
$1,500
$6,400.00
$9,075.45
$5,095.24
$3,693.84
$3,143.72
These are new fees as a result of
the new process from the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The
proposed fees will cover staff’s
time to process the permit.
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESSES
It is important to the City Council that there be some incentive for participation in various Historic
Preservation processes. The following incentives may be applied to a project approved by the
Commission, and subject to approval by the Council.
1. Mills Act Tax Abatement Program – Participation in the Mills Act Program is part of the Draft
Ordinance so no action would be needed if the Ordinance were adopted. For designated
properties, Mills Act participation provides an opportunity for significant tax relief. The City is
proposing that Mills Act participation be approached as a “pilot” project, so that tax benefits and
impacts can be carefully studied.
2. State Historic Building Code. The California State Historic Building Code (SBHC) provides
alternative building regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, or relocation of
historic resources. The SHBC shall be used in evaluating any building permit for work affecting a
historic resource. This can result in relaxation or modification of some standards and could assist
an owner in working on their home or property. This is built into the process and requires no
further action.
3. Parking Modifications. The required number of parking spaces shall be the same as the number
of spaces that existed on the site at the time the site was developed, and shall be maintained and
not reduced. Adaptive reuse projects shall otherwise be exempt from the provisions set forth in
Section 9103.07 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Article IX of the Arcadia Development Code.
This can provide a major assist by not requiring certain parking spaces to be built or replaced. This
is built into the Draft Ordinance and would provide no further action if the Ordinance were
adopted.
4. Fee Waivers for Processes. Along with the Historic Preservation Ordinance comes a set of costs
for the review of various processes. This includes fees for the Designation of a Historic Landmark
($1,800), Designation of a Historic District ($2,500), and Mills Act participation ($1,500). An
incentive that could be offered is that no fees are charged for these application processes. This
would require an action by the City Council.
5. Reductions in Building Permit fees for Designated Properties. For those properties that do
become designated, a potential incentive is that building permit fees could be reduced by 50% for
those projects that propose work to enhance or preserve the historic nature of the building. This
reduction would only apply to projects that were deemed consistent with the designated
property. This would require an action by the City Council.
Preliminary Exemption
Assessment