Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12a - Amending the Development Code to implement a Historic Preserfation Ordinance DATE: March 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 At the February 19, 2019, City Council meeting, a public hearing was held to consider a Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, public testimony was closed and the City Council agreed in concept to a Draft Ordinance. The City Council further directed that the Ordinance be modified pursuant to their decision and returned at a later date for introduction. It is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2359 approving 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. BACKGROUND 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, t he Ordinance originally proposed a Historic Preservation Ordinance - Introduction March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5 list of 176 resources that were identified as being potentially 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. At the February 19, 2019, meeting, the City Council took additional public testimony and engaged in lengthy discussion. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council took the actions listed below: 1. Agreed in concept to introduce a new Historic Preservation Ordinance. 2. Eliminated the list of eligible historic properties and removed it as part of the Ordinance. 3. Retained the City Council’s ability to override a property owner’s objection to being designated as a historic landmark, but mentioned that there are only a handful of “gems” that this power would be considered for. 4. Agreed with the recommendation that a Historic District could be formed if 75% of the owners within the District agreed, and at least 60% of the structures in the district were contributing to the historic nature of the District. For a District, there would be no Council override ability if the 75% threshold was not met. Ordinance No. 2359 has been modified to reflect these actions and is included as Attachment No. 1 to this Staff Report. For a full description of the background on this topic, as well as a description of the Ordinance, public comments, fiscal analysis, and the Findings required for approval, please see the February 19, 2019 , Staff Report, included as Attachment No. 3. In addition to Ordinance No. 2359, a resolution establishing fees for historic preservation applications and processes will be provided at a later date for City Council consideration. ANALYSIS The City Council heard testimony on February 19 from over 50 public speakers. Many of these speakers own structures that had been placed on the list of potentially eligible properties for consideration. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission that a Historic Preservation Ordinance should be adopted and that the list of eligible properties should be eliminated and not be made part of the Ordinance. Even though the City Council made it clear that simply being on the list would not automatically d esignate a property, the conclusion was that the list was not necessary. Historic Preservation Ordinance - Introduction March 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Following discussion, the City Council did add back in a clause that was in the previous Draft Ordinance to provide the possibility of a City Council “override” of a property owner’s objection to a historic designation. The City Council felt that there are a small number of structures or resources in the City that merited at least consideration for preservation in the future given their importance to the City’s history, the fact that they were designed by a famous architect, or the like. Although a number of specific properties we re mentioned by Council Members as worthy of this consideration, there was not a formal list created or adopted of these properties. However, the City Council made it clear this authority would only apply to a small number of properties. Additionally, the City Council also required that a simple majority vote of the Council would be needed even to consider utilizing this override, AND a supermajority vote of at least four affirmative votes would be needed to actually designate a property over a property owner’s objections. A specific list of properties that this override might apply to was not provided, nor is it advisable to do so. The reason for this is that any property over 50 years of age or older that is proposed for demolition needs to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) process to determine whether it meets any historic criteria. This practice has been in place for many years and will not change as a result of the Ordinance. Through this process, hundreds of properties have been demolished after being reviewed by a qualified architectural historian or historian. Without going through this process, it is not fair or advisable to establish a truncated list of properties as this would be too subjective. The difference between a smaller, focused list of what the City Council may consider “gems” and the original list of 176 properties is that the original list was merely a list of potentially eligible structures. A revised focused list of “gems” would pre-identify these structures as worthy of preservation before any additional work was completed. It is possible that resources placed on this list would drop off once the required review was conducted due to additional information uncovering that additions had been completed, alterations had occurred, or other circumstances exist that would render the project ineligible. In fact, this is exactly what has been occurring with individual property owners conducting their own reviews of their properties because they had been placed on the original list of 176 resources. A good example of the importance of the review process is the Derby Restaurant. Anyone making a “short list” of properties that are important to Arcadia’s history would include the Derby. However, at the meeting, the owner of the restaurant provided testimony that not a lot of the original Derby remained, that additions and replacements over time had removed much of the original work, and that much of the horse racing décor and artifacts may actually be removed from the site. While we do not know how this may impact a potential historic designation of the property, this illustrates the risk of elevating a small list of properties to a higher level of scrutiny without doing any research. If the City Council wishes to adopt a specific list of “gems”, it would be strongly recommended that additional research be done on those properties under consideration prior to establishing such a list. This additional research would cost approximately $3-5,000 per property studied. Historic Preservation Ordinance - Introduction March 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Finally, the City Council agreed with the original recommendation on the establishment of a potential Historic District: That 60% of the structures in a proposed District would need to be “contributors” to the District, and 75% of the property owners would need to affirmatively agree to be in the District. If those numbers were reached, the District could be proposed. At that time, the City Council could still deny a District if they felt it was too small, or did not meet the finding in the Ordinance that it “possessed a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development”. In no case, could the City Council approve a District if the 75% property owner approval requirement was not reached. As mentioned above, a resolution will be provided at a later date related to fees and incentives for historic preservation work. Proposed fees will include Certificates of Appropriateness (Major and Minor), Designation of a Historic District, Designation of a Local Landmark, and Mills Art participation. While establishing fees will be important, it is understood that the City Council is interested in this being primarily a voluntary program, and there being incentives available. Therefore, when the fees are considered, the Staff will also provide a recommended incentive package for City Council review and consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance (and the associated Fee Resolution) 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 envi ronmental degradation. Conversely, the Historic Preservation Ordinance would establish protections and procedures for the preservation of cultural resources. 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. Historic Preservation Ordinance - Introduction March 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Attachment No. 1: Ordinance No. 2359, including Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Attachment No. 2: Public Comments Received after February 19, 2019 Meeting Attachment No. 3: February 19, 2019 Staff Report, includes:  Public Comments received after Planning Commission Meeting  Revised Fees and Potential Incentives Attachment No. 4: Minutes from the January 8, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting Attachment No. 5: 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 Public Comments Received After February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting Attachment No. 2 Emails Received After February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting Total Emails: 61 In Opposition: 57 In Favor: 4 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 March 1, 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 letter is a follow up to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) tentatively approved at the February 19, 2019 meeting of the City Council. Our understanding is that the HPO is on the agenda for a second reading at the March 19, 2019 meeting. I am greatly appreciative of the extraordinary amount of time which the Council dedicated to this issue. Given the number of persons who appeared at and who spoke at the February meeting, and the emotion that was apparent on both sides of the issue, this is certainly a very important issue to our community. The fact that the ordinance tentatively approved was a compromise is usually indicative that it was the correct choice. As discussed in my short presentation at the meeting and in the written letter and memoranda previously sent, a significant concern is liability of the City for inverse condemnation. Making the HPO purely voluntary, and deleting the “list” of potential properties goes a long way to eliminating that potential risk. This would be the safest and most conservative approach for the City to adopt. It appears from comments by several Council Members as well as the City Manager that you were not aware that the Development Services Department has been refusing to issue permits to any property on “the list” and refusing to take properties off the list when asked to do so. Regardless of whether the Council was aware, this action creates a significant risk of the city being liable for inverse condemnation. Development Services needs to be instructed to immediately resume issuing permits. Hon. Sho Tay, Mayor City of Arcadia March 1, 2019 Page 2 Virtually any property which is significant enough that it warrants attention is probably eligible for nomination to the State or Federal registers. Absent voluntary inclusion of the property owner, creation of a separate local register is not necessary. The fact that the City adopted an HPO already makes properties eligible for benefits under the Mills Act. Beyond adoption of an HPO, there is no need for the City to become involved in designating specific properties. In fact, there is a significant financial risk if it does. Contrary to the comments expressed by one Council Member, an HPO is not the same as zoning regulations. Zoning laws by their nature include all properties within the city or specified area. The HPO, by its very nature, applies only to specified parcels. It is this limited application which brings inverse condemnation into play. I understand the comments of Councilmembers Beck and Verlato in regard to protecting the remaining architectural “gems” in the City. Adopting a restrictive HPO is not the answer. There are better ways way to approach the issue without exposing the City to liability for significant monetary damages. a. The city could engage in an active outreach program to educate the public as to the benefits of historic designation. The Arcadia Historic Society would be an appropriate instrument to accomplish this task. This effort could be supported by the Los Angeles Conservancy. b. For properties which the owner wants to pursue development there is a simple and clear solution: People who are interested in preserving the structure should be willing to purchase the property and nominate it for HPO designation. A non-profit 503 (c) corporation could be established to accept tax deductible donations. There are certainly enough people in Arcadia with the financial means to accomplish this. If necessary, organizations such as the Los Angeles Conservancy could be a possible source of funds. On the other hand, if no one is willing to contribute to an acquisition fund, then perhaps the property is not so important as to be worth preserving. Hon. Sho Tay, Mayor City of Arcadia March 1, 2019 Page 3 As stewards of the City’s finances, the City Council has the obligation of making sure the City is operated in a financially secure manner. Especially in times of a financial crisis, exposing the City to liability for significant claims would not be consistent with that responsibility. Very Truly Yours, Byrne & Associates, PLC Steven P. Byrne By: Steven P. Byrne, Esq. cc: Hon Shoo Tay shotayforArcadia@gmail.com Hon Peter Amundson pamundson@ArcadiaCA.gov Hon April Verlato averlato@ArcadiaCA.gov Hon Thomas Beck tbeck@ArcadiaCA.gov Hon Roger Chandler citycouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov Dominic Lazzaretto domlazz@arcadiaca.gov Jason Kruckeberg jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov Stephen P. Deitsch cityattorney@ArcadiaCA.gov Ankaa Live Plaza Robert McClellan mcclellanarch@yahoo.com From: Sammie Fong <> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 5:41 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov>; shotay@gmail.com Subject: HPO Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Thank you. Sammie Fong District 4 resident Sent from my iPhone From: Mary Ma Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:13 PM To: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Regards Mary Ma Landlord 发自我的 iPhone From: fu yi yan Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:17 PM To: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Regards Yiyan Fu Landlord 发自我的 iPhone From: YY Xiang < Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 8:00 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Thank you. Yongshi Xiang From: baoqiong li <> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 8:03 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Thank you. Cindy Li Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, Americans, who want to truly preserve their freedoms, culture, heritage, and their history, need to learn the difference in meaning between “legal” and “lawful”. Private property rights, the right of due process, and the protection against involuntary servitude (all violated by most Historic District Ordinances) are examples of lawful rights protected by our Constitution. Statutory enactments are legalities. Legislatures enact thousands of statutes each year, such as the enabling legislation permitting localities to pass Historic District Ordinances. Most of us refer to statutes as “laws”, but to the extent statutory enactments undermine or are contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, they are not law, and should be defiantly resisted and defeated. Please stand up for our constitution and fully negate HPO or make 100% voluntary HPO ( both individual and historical district ) in Arcadia. Thank you. Signature District x resident Helen From: Jysw0118 Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 9:13 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Thank you. Signature District x resident From: Daisy Xiang <> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:17 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, I suggest the Council to change the Historical District requirement from 75% to 100% owner’s voluntary consent or just cancel it entirely. As Mr. Tom Beck pointed out in the last Council meeting, there are only about 12 gems in Arcadia that is worth preserving, so why should there be a Historic Districts? Historic Districts should be excluded in the ordinance. If individual owners want to preserve their homes then they can individually apply, why do we need to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts and force neighbor’s homes to be in a historic district? The Council already agreed to cancel 176 potential historic homes because they saw the strong objection coming from homeowners which mean the Council agrees that there is potential financial loss from homeowner’s houses being forced to turn historical. So it should be fair that Historical District be 100% voluntary as well—no double standards. No one deserves to be forced into being a historical home or being in a historical district. Why make people suffer? Some Councilman may say 75% is a high threshold and impossible to achieve, but why take the chance? If it is impossible why don’t we just cancel it? Why do we have to put it in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance historical districts should be 100% voluntary, just like potential individually historic properties. This has to be fair on both sides. Thank you. Daisy Xiang From: baoqiong li <> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:16 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, I suggest the Council to change the Historical District requirement from 75% to 100% owner’s voluntary consent or just cancel it entirely. As Mr. Tom Beck pointed out in the last Council meeting, there are only about 12 gems in Arcadia that is worth preserving, so why should there be a Historic Districts? Historic Districts should be excluded in the ordinance. If individual owners want to preserve their homes then they can individually apply, why do we need to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts and force neighbor’s homes to be in a historic district? The Council already agreed to cancel 176 potential historic homes because they saw the strong objection coming from homeowners which mean the Council agrees that there is potential financial loss from homeowner’s houses being forced to turn historical. So it should be fair that Historical District be 100% voluntary as well—no double standards. No one deserves to be forced into being a historical home or being in a historical district. Why make people suffer? Some Councilman may say 75% is a high threshold and impossible to achieve, but why take the chance? If it is impossible why don’t we just cancel it? Why do we have to put it in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance historical districts should be 100% voluntary, just like potential individually historic properties. This has to be fair on both sides. Thank you. Baoqiong Li From: Yongshi Xiang > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:14 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, I suggest the Council to change the Historical District requirement from 75% to 100% owner’s voluntary consent or just cancel it entirely. As Mr. Tom Beck pointed out in the last Council meeting, there are only about 12 gems in Arcadia that is worth preserving, so why should there be a Historic Districts? Historic Districts should be excluded in the ordinance. If individual owners want to preserve their homes then they can individually apply, why do we need to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts and force neighbor’s homes to be in a historic district? The Council already agreed to cancel 176 potential historic homes because they saw the strong objection coming from homeowners which mean the Council agrees that there is potential financial loss from homeowner’s houses being forced to turn historical. So it should be fair that Historical District be 100% voluntary as well—no double standards. No one deserves to be forced into being a historical home or being in a historical district. Why make people suffer? Some Councilman may say 75% is a high threshold and impossible to achieve, but why take the chance? If it is impossible why don’t we just cancel it? Why do we have to put it in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance historical districts should be 100% voluntary, just like potential individually historic properties. This has to be fair on both sides. Thank you. Yongshi Xiang From: Fiona Shi Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 6:40 AM To: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No HPO or 100% voluntary HPO ( both individual and historical district ) Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, Americans, who want to truly preserve their freedoms, culture, heritage, and their history, need to learn the difference in meaning between “legal” and “lawful”. Private property rights, the right of due process, and the protection against involuntary servitude (all violated by most Historic District Ordinances) are examples of lawful rights protected by our Constitution. Statutory enactments are legalities. Legislatures enact thousands of statutes each year, such as the enabling legislation permitting localities to pass Historic District Ordinances. Most of us refer to statutes as “laws”, but to the extent statutory enactments undermine or are contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, they are not law, and should be defiantly resisted and defeated. Please stand up for our constitution and fully negate HPO or make 100% voluntary HPO ( both individual and historical district ) in Arcadia. Thank you. Fiona Shi District resident From: EMILY AUYEUNG < Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 8:15 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Request 100% owner's voluntary consent to be historical homes Dear City Mangers and City Councils, I am District 4 resident for 20 years. My husband and I own the property, use our sweats to earn the money to pay off the mortgage and to pay for the expenses of keeping it up. My house is my life's earning. As a house owner, I totally disagree that my house's property right will be controlled in the hands of other people. It should be 100% voluntary to be historical homes and no one other than myself can determine the fate of my house, not my neighbors nor city councils. If individual owners want to preserve their homes, they should apply individually then. Why bother to create more troubles to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts? No reason to force neighboring homes to be inside a historic district! No Historic district please! As I still remember our Councilman Roger Chandler mentioned one point before, 'we need to move forward, but not to go backward!'. We already have many old homes in Arcadia already, why bother to keep more historical homes? By looking at El Monte, there are many old buildings which make the city very ugly and poor. It only attracts more criminals and low income families to settle there, creating a bad image in the eyes of home buyers. I really don't want to see Arcadia to become another El Monte in the future. In order to make Arcadia a beautiful and safe city to live in, I am begging all of our Arcadia councilmen to consider our wish: 100% voluntary on HPO and No Historic District. Thank you for all of your time to read my email! Sincerely yours, Emily AuYeung District 4 resident From: YH Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 9:02 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Concerns over HPO Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district. In other words every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Yuhong Huang Concerned Arcadian residents From: clara siu Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 9:12 PM To: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Historical Dear Sir, Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Clara Siu Concerned Arcadian residents -- Clara Siu -----Original Message----- From: beverly zhou [mailto:beverly1zhou@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 7:33 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Xue Jing Shi Xue min Shi Michael Shi Beverly Zhou Hilary Zhou Su ping Arcadia residents From: Angela Hui [ Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 8:57 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Suggested amendment on City of Arcadia's Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) Good morning Mayor Tay, Mayor Pro Tem Verlato, Council Member Amundson, Council Member Beck, and Council Member Chandler, City Manager Lazzaretto, and Assistant City Manager Kruckeberg, For the upcoming city council meeting tomorrow, 3-5-19, Tue., and as I heard many negative comments from many concerned residents particularly after the 2-19-19's city council meeting which the city has adopted and approved Historic Preservation Ordinance for Arcadia. With the possibly super small special interest residence might be interested to have his/her house designated as historic house, the majority residence do not like to have such a restriction and let's just make it clean. There is no state requirement to have HPO adopted in any city. Must be 100% owner's voluntary - I believe the owner should have the final decision and not be subject to override. Much better to offer additional incentives on these real gems. However, if an over-ride must be included. The term “Supermajority” sounds good, but with a small City Council such as ours it is 4 votes, only one vote more than a simple majority. If a property is truly a gem, it should be possible to get 100% of the Planning Commission and City Council to agree. If a property owner’s objection is over-ridden, I fear that the owner will do the bare minimum to keep the property in good repair and will let it deteriorate to the point that it is either an eyesore or so deteriorated that it must be torn down anyway. With a less than majority over-ride, the owner may be tempted to sue the City for damages, costing the City money and time to defend. NO historic district at all - 75% vote is unacceptably low for establishing a district, regardless of what other cities do. Many cities nationwide have experienced backlash and severe housing shortages by the overzealous application of historic preservation. Any vote should only be by the “contributors”, not by non-contributors. The non-contributors may have an agenda different from historic preservation and it is only fair for those directly affected to have the vote. Since there are no restrictions on non-contributing properties within a historic district, these property owners may vote for their own increase in value and not for historic reasons. Examples: 1. Imagine a proposed district of 50 homes, 60% (30) contributors and 40% (20) non-contributors. If all owners could vote, the 20 non-contributors could vote as a block in what they see as their best interest. Using the proposed 75% (75% of the 50 homes = 38 homes AND 25% of the 50 homes = 12 homes), those 20 + only 18 (18/30 = 60% of the 30) contributors could win the election. This means that 12 owners would be forced into having their homes declared as historically significant and would have their property rights restricted against their will and could not demolish or perform significant improvements. All for the interest of the 20 who are not restricted in any way and the 18 who actually want their rights restricted. It would be more fair to only let the 30 contributors vote on district formation since they are the only ones affected by the result. Using the 75% criteria, it would require 23 (30 contributors x 75%) of them to drag the other 7 into restrictions of their property rights. Of course, even 7 (25%) is too many to have their property rights violated. 2. If enough owners (contributors and/or non-contributors) vote to establish a district, there is no effect on non-contributors. The non- contributors have no restrictions on remodeling or demolishing and rebuilding. Once again, 75% is too low as many contributing owners would have their property rights restricted against their will while their non- contributing neighbor could demolish and put up a mansion. The best way is to have no districts at all. If any number of the contributors in a given area want to have their own property declared historic, they can go through the application process individually. This is without punishing anyone who does not want to participate. No district example: Using the same 50 homes with 30 contributors as before. If any of the contributors wishes to have historic designation, the contributor can apply for it. This would not affect any other property, contributing or non-contributing. If 5 or 10 or even all 30 wanted the historic designation, they could get it, but they would not affect any contributor who did not want it and would not affect any non-contributor. This puts each owner in control of his or her own property and preserves property rights. Recommended to put on 2020 election ballot: IN CONCLUSION, given the large number of citizens who testified against this Ordinance and the ongoing questions being brought forth by those who really care about our city, with no reason of rush to make a final decision by the city, I recommend that whatever final version is approved by City Council also be subject to a ballot referendum on the Ordinance. Failure to do so can only add to the distrust many have for their elected representatives and will likely result in the citizens circulating a referendum petition invalidating the Ordinance. Putting it in a ballot for our voters to vote is the best and fair way. It is a once for all matter. I understanding different council member have his/her different opinion in this HPO matters, next term of councilmen might have different thoughts too, thus, the best way is to put on the ballot. I did a quick check, the Historic Preservation Ordinance status near Arcadia No Historic Preservation Ordinance: o Temple City o Rosemead o El Monte Has Historic Preservation Ordinance: o San Marino 1. No historic districts. 2. Individual properties may be nominated by owner or City, but must have owner consent to establish historic status. No over-ride if owner objects. o Sierra Madre 1. Ordinance enacted in 1987. 2. No historic districts. 3. Individual properties may be nominated by owner or City, but must have owner consent to establish historic status. No over-ride if owner objects. The above tell me that HPO is not really needed and there is no need to rush a decision too. QUESTIONS to ALL: 1. Why is the urgent need to approve this HPO matter? 2. What does it benefits to the city with HPO in place? 3. It seems from what I heard, the opposing parties are way more than the interested INDIVIDUAL party, so let these interested individual party to apply on his/her own without taking away property rights. Why our represented councils have a different perspectives? Would you mind to share your thoughts with me to better understand? 4. As Arcadia declares fiscal emergency, where is the source of funds to pay the administration costs of the Mills Act? 5. Even the city goes for Mills Act next despite the administration costs while the city declares fiscal emergency, would the Mills Act reduce the revenue of the city too? Isn't that we need higher revenue to offset the deficit. Thanks for listening to this concerned residents voices. In fact, this is the first time I write to all, you can tell how it might be an issue to the community. BTW, I have no personal interest in this as I am not a real estate developer nor a real estate agent, but just a property owner owning a little house in District 5 that forming a district nor having my house to be listed as a historic house is highly unlikely, but like the role of all respectful city councilmen, city manager and assistant city manager, we should all help for the betterment of the Arcadia residences. Best Regards, Angela From: Ying Zhang <> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:00 AM To: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: historic preservation Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, From: Alfred [] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:43 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; ShoTaylorArcadia@gmail.com; Tom Beck <tbeck@arcadiaca.gov>; April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov>; Peter Amundson <pamundson@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: City of Arcadia, Ca. Ordinance to Preserve Historical Landmarks specifically the preservation of the Clara Baldwin Stocker Home Dear Mayor and City Council Members of Arcadia. I, Barbara M. Mullender, the great granddaughter of Clara Baldwin Stocker, plead with you and urge you to please continue to support and protect the historical landmarks that still exist in the City of Arcadia. The new preservation ordinance is vital for protection of the few historical landmarks that still exist in the City of Arcadia including the Clara Baldwin Stocker Home erected in 1903. I appreciate your positive support and consideration to protect this historical landmark and reject a motion that may endanger and ultimately destroy this landmark. Thank you very much for your support. Barbara M. Mullender -----Original Message----- From: Alfred [] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 10:05 AM To: Mary Buttice <MButtice@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: RE: Arcadia City Council Meeting on Feb. 19, 2019, Preserve Arcadia History Hello Mary, Thank you very much for your email regarding my message to the City Council of Arcadia regarding the protection and preservation of one of the few remaining historical landmarks, the Clara Baldwin Stocker family home on 291 West Foothill Blvd. in Arcadia. I appreciate if you could make sure my new message to the Mayor and City Council Members will be received and reviewed for consideration by the City Council members. Thank you again and best regards Barbara M. Giese -----Original Message----- From: Mary Buttice <MButtice@arcadiaca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:08 AM To: Subject: RE: Arcadia City Council Meeting on Feb. 19, 2019, Preserve Arcadia History Good morning Mrs. Giese, Thank you for contacting the City of Arcadia, we appreciate your comments. Your email has been forwarded to the City Council and Planning staff for consideration. Regards, Mary Bcc: Mayor and City Council Mary Buttice Executive Assistant, City Manager’s Office| City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. | Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 821-4302 | mbuttice@ArcadiaCA.gov -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 12:49 PM To: Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com> Subject: Arcadia City Council Meeting on Feb. 19, 2019, Preserve Arcadia History Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members of the City of Arcadia, California. On your February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting, I ask you, the City Council of Arcadia, to adopt the Historic Resource Survey and restore language back into the Historic Preservation Ordinance giving you, the City Council the ability to designate without owner consent in exceptional circumstances. My name is Barbara Mullender Giese and I am the great-granddaughter of Clara Baldwin. My great-grandmother's home in the City of Arcadia is one of the few significant architectural structures that need to be protected. Clara Baldwin's Home is at risk of being destroyed just like Anoakia my great-grandaunts home. The current owner of Clara Baldwin's home has plans to demolish the Home and subdivide the property. As members of the Arcadia community I urge you to show respect for the historical structures by honoring the few remaining sites with the proper designation. Please vote "YES" and save a small part of the Arcadia my family founded in 1903. I appreciate your support and assistance. Mrs. Barbara Mullender Giese 61499 Topaz Drive La Quinta, Ca 92253 From: Scott Rubel [ Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:02 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Tom Beck <tbeck@arcadiaca.gov>; Peter Amundson <pamundson@arcadiaca.gov>; April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov>; Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com> Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Ladies and gentlemen: Congratulations on your earlier vote to establish the historic preservation ordinance. Please strengthen it and enforce it and do not give in to the disinformation you have been receiving regarding historic property ownership. I am in charge of such a property and have not been prevented from making improvements and changes that are needed. Kind regards, —Scott Rubel 977 Montecito Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90031-1633 -----Original Message----- From: Bernie Walp ] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 10:52 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Tom Beck <tbeck@arcadiaca.gov>; Peter Amundson <pamundson@arcadiaca.gov>; April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov>; Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com> Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Ladies and gentlemen: Like Arcadia’s founders, you are making your mark on Arcadia’s history. I feel sure Arcadia will take great advantage of its recent laudable activity to preserve its history. Your new ordinance seems considered, very well written, and tailored to Arcadia’s uniqueness. As one who was raised in the San Gabriel Valley and lived my earliest years in Arcadia (854 Palo Alto Dr.), and like everyone else who has spent any time watching the area change, I share the region's fascination with Arcadia's colorful early characters and the city’s remarkable path of development. Some cities in the Valley have abandoned their rich identities in favor of pavements and malls, but Arcadia has stepped up to the plate. Congratulations on your earlier vote to establish the historic preservation ordinance. Please strengthen it and enforce it. Kind regards, P.B. Walp Hilo, Hawaii -----Original Message----- From: David Liu Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:48 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HPO Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, David Liu ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents -----Original Message----- From: Shu Zhang [ Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:49 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Shu Zhang ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lin [] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 12:14 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HPO concerns Mail to: CityCouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov domlazz@arcadiaca.gov jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents Andrew Lin - Sent from my iPhone, excuse any typo. From: jlin1369 Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 12:23 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Jing Lin ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: Sherman Shi Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 2:28 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Against an involuntary HPO Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonable historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Xue Min，Shi ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents From: Janet Chan Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:30 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Proposed Historical Ordinance - Districts Dear Council, Much time was spent discussing the individual list in the last council meeting but not much time was spent discussing the forming of historical districts, leaving many residents still puzzled about what it means for their homes. The proposed historical ordinance should be 100% voluntary. No homeowner should be forced to be a historical district whether they are a contributor or not. It doesn’t make sense to get rid of the individual list but then have those same individual homes (and MORE) also be subject to a historical district. It is redundant. The historical district is worse than the individual list. 75% is pretty easy to achieve in some areas of Arcadia. Why not just make the whole thing voluntary and respect homeowner’s private rights? If the Council insists to move forward with the Historical District only needing 75% homeowner agreement then this should be put on the next ballot/election. This potentially involves thousands of homes in Arcadia and needs to be voted on by the public. You are messing with people’s private property rights and their life savings and such a big decision deserves the respect, time, and patience and not passing it just based off of assumptions like “75% is a high threshold, other cities are lower” or “it will never happen” or assumptions like “nobody will volunteer their home to be in a historic district.” If the law is there and it allows for it then there is always a possibility of it happening. Your job as Council is to try to protect the best interests of EVERY Arcadia citizen and it’s been clear from the beginning by the public’s reaction that this historical ordinance needs to be 100% voluntary in every single aspect. Thank you, Janet Chan From: Anita DeAragon [] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:45 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Arcadia historic ordinance! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Anita DeAragon <> Date: March 4, 2019 at 4:38:26 PM PST To: ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com Subject: Arcadia historic ordinance! I am EJ Baldwin's great great grand daughter. I live in Santa Bárbara. I saw with my own eyes, Anita Baldwin's home (Anoakia), torn down. I am writing you regarding the Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance! Please keep it in place! It is imperative that we preserve California's history!!! I am forwarding my letter to the other City Council members. Thank you for your serious consideration, Anita D'Aragon Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hua Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:13 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HPO— please respect and listen to the Arcadian resident Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Susan Hua ————————— Concerned Arcadian resident Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: guo susan ] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 10:57 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Issues with HPO Respectful Mayor and City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonable historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Susan Guo ————————— Concerned Arcadian resident ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Lau <r > Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:20 PM Subject: HPO To: <citycouncil@arcadiaca.gov>, <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>, <DSD@arcadiaca.gov> Dear respectful City Council members, Dominic and Jason I personally support to have HPO to preserve the real historic gems in our city but definitely needs to be balance our homeowners' property rights. I am the owner who only has the sole right to determine my property being a historic gem or not as this is my asset that I work so hard to own it. In consideration of the 12 properties valued by the City as a real gems, if the owners do not want to voluntary these, I would suggest City either to buy it or find new owner to preserve these. City council has no authority to override my property right. With the “super majority vote” the city council essentially has the right to turn any property into a historic property without owner’s approval. To me, this is not transparent and is outright unfair. Our property value is dropping comparing to our neigboring cities . If city council pass the involuntary program violated our property right, the real estate market will be even worsen. I believe all Arcadians do not want to see this happens. Regarding to the historic district, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. It's a nightmare to me that my property will be in historic district at anytime and I could not protect my property and asset. This is totally unacceptable. Ultimately, I support HPO as some residents want to preserve their properties but this needs be completely 100% voluntary. It is my name on the grand deed. I used my hard-earned money to own it. City council members cannot take away my property rights which is completely unjust. They suppose to serve our community and not to control and manipulate my property right. I am sincerely request City to put this ordinance on 2020 election ballot for all Arcadians to VOTE to decide our fate of our properties. We are now in severe financial challenges of deep deficits, I really don't think we should pay any further funds on this HPO in terms of consultant fee, legal fees, Mill Acts etc. Thanks and Best Regards -----Original Message----- From: Susanne Guo ] Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 10:37 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Opposing an involuntary HPO Respectful Mayor and City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonable historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Tina Yu ————————— Concerned Arcadian resident From: EMILY AUYEUNG [ Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 10:01 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Request 100% owner's voluntary consent to be historical homes Dear City Mangers and City Councils, I am District 4 resident for 20 years. My husband and I own the property, use our sweats to earn the money to pay off the mortgage and to pay for the expenses of keeping it up. My house is my life's earning. As a house owner, I totally disagree that my house's property right will be controlled in the hands of other people. It should be 100% voluntary to be historical homes and no one other than myself can determine the fate of my house, not my neighbors nor city councils. If individual owners want to preserve their homes, they should apply individually then. Why bother to create more troubles to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts? No reason to force neighboring homes to be inside a historic district! No Historic district please! As I still remember our Councilman Roger Chandler mentioned one point before, 'we need to move forward, but not to go backward!'. We already have many old homes in Arcadia already, why bother to keep more historical homes? By looking at El Monte, there are many old buildings which make the city very ugly and poor. It only attracts more criminals and low income families to settle there, creating a bad image in the eyes of home buyers. I really don't want to see Arcadia to become another El Monte in the future. In order to make Arcadia a beautiful and safe city to live in, I am begging all of our Arcadia councilmen to consider our wish: 100% voluntary on HPO and No Historic District. Thank you for all of your time to read my email! Sincerely yours, Emily AuYeung District 4 resident From: Rita Chao [] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 10:36 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: domlazz@ar.comadiaca.gov Subject: WeChat group "2-Arcadia邻里互助讨论群" chat history Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Rita Chao ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents From: clara siu [ Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:16 PM To: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Re: Historical This is resend and waiting your response. Thanks On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:11 PM clara siu <csclara@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sir, Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Clara Siu Concerned Arcadian residents -- Clara Siu -----Original Message----- From: Victor Ju ] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:12 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Opposition Proposal Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Yuchun Victor Ju ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents Sent from my iPhone From: Yongping Zhang [] Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:49 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Re: About HPO re-sent! Regards, Yongping 626-623-0321 On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, 18:34 Yongping Zhang <zypcliff@gmail.com> wrote: Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district. In other words every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Yongping Zhang 626-623-0321 From: Roger Ro [] Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 11:00 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Concerns about the city override authority Respectful City council members, I have been a resident and property owner in the city Arcadia for 15 years. My wife and I are both citizens and we have never missed in casting our votes. We support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Junje (Roger) Ro Concerned Arcadian residents From: Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 11:14 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Historic preservation Ordinance Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, June Chau ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents From: Solar Chiang Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 6:57 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: New petition to you: Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法 New petition Arcadia City Council – Solar Chiang started a petition on Change.org and listed you as a decision maker. Learn more about Solar Chiang’s petition and how you can respond. Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法 Petition by Solar Chiang · Started Mar 05, 2019 As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to... Read more WHAT YOU CAN DO 1. View the petition Learn about the petition and its supporters. You will receive updates as new supporters sign the petition so you can see who is signing and why. 2. Respond to the petition Post a response to let the petition supporters know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action, or ask them for more information. 3. Continue the dialogue Read the comments posted by petition supporters and continue the dialogue so that others can see you're an engaged leader who is willing to participate in open discussion. View the petition CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people around the world to resolve issues. Learn more This notification was sent to citycouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov, the address listed as the decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a response to let the petition starter know. Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA From: Lesley Ma Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:14 PM To: Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: historic preservation Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Lesley Ma Concerned Arcadian residents -----Original Message----- From: Helena Tan [] Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 10:07 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No HPO， No more race discrimination, No resolution No. 7240, and No ordinance No. 2359 Dear Arcadia City councils, As residents of Arcadia, we always respect our history by visiting the existing designated historical landmarks, especially in LA Arboretum, quiet often, almost daily every year. We am sure there are a lot of special buildings here built over the time, by all of the honorable families here including ourselves. I fully agree with 80% of the people in the city council presented on Feb 19 2019. We are not demanding to preserve all of properties. It has to be voluntarily by the current property owners. Let’s review the history, institutional development finally began to catch up with the rest of Arcadia, visibly in the form of schools. First Ave school was constructed with 1919 bond funds to serve over 200 students. Many of this school’s students were the children of Japanese American flower and vegetable growers. The 1927 brochure for the AP Green subdivision sited just south of the Arcadia City limits illustrated the typical marketing approach for these 1920s development which included race- based deed restrictions to exclude any minorities “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.” Without further quote of our history, our land have been able to give the support to lives of native Americans, Spanish people, Japanese, Europeans, African Americans, now Asian as a majority of 67%. By preserving the tract style home built within 50 years before 1970 as historic districts, it could obviously remind people of racial discrimination experienced by all minorities between 1920s and 1980s. That is why we fully negate the resolution No. 7240, or the ordinance No. 2359, please don't adopt the historic preservation ordinance. Regards, Helena Ai Arcadia Resident From: Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:12 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: 5 more people signed “Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法” New signatures Arcadia City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's supporters. Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法 Petition by Solar Chiang · 5 supporters 5 more people signed in the last 17 minutes RECENT SUPPORTERS Yuming Yuan Arcadia, CA · Mar 08, 2019 holly Chen arcadia, CA · Mar 08, 2019 Ying Liu Arcadia, CA · Mar 08, 2019 View petition ti it MICHELLE WU ARCADIA, CA · Mar 08, 2019 Siu hing Kwok Monrovia, CA · Mar 08, 2019 View all 5 supporters CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action, or ask them for more information. Learn more. This notification was sent to citycouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov, the address listed as the decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a response to let the petition starter know. Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA -----Original Message----- From: Helena Tan Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 10:13 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No history district Dear City Council members and City Manager and Assistance Manager, Per the subject, I just want to make this very short, Arcadia House owners should have the final say of Historical homes or not. It should be 💯💯% voluntary and No one other than myself can destinate my house, not my neighbors nor city councils. Thanks for the attention Regards, Helena Ai A Resident of Arcadia From: Tai Yuan [ Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:11 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Homeowners property right Mail to: CityCouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov domlazz@arcadiaca.gov jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Jesse yuan ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents From: Tai Yuan [ Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:18 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Mail to: CityCouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov domlazz@arcadiaca.gov jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Ly Cung Yuan ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents -----Original Message----- From: helen xiong [ Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:11 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No Historic preservation ordinance - 100% voluntary only, must be only owner’s Dear Arcadia City councils, As residents of Arcadia, we always respect our history by visiting the existing designated historical landmarks, especially in LA Arboretum, quiet often, almost daily every year. We am sure there are a lot of special buildings here built over the time, by all of the honorable families here including ourselves. I fully agree with 80% of the people in the city council presented on Feb 19 2019. We are not demanding to preserve all of properties. It has to be voluntarily by the current property owners. Let’s review the history, institutional development finally began to catch up with the rest of Arcadia, visibly in the form of schools. First Ave school was constructed with 1919 bond funds to serve over 200 students. Many of this school’s students were the children of Japanese American flower and vegetable growers. The 1927 brochure for the AP Green subdivision sited just south of the Arcadia City limits illustrated the typical marketing approach for these 1920s development which included race- based deed restrictions to exclude any minorities “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.” Without further quote of our history, our land have been able to give the support to lives of native Americans, Spanish people, Japanese, Europeans, African Americans, now Asian as a majority of 67%. By preserving the tract style home built within 50 years before 1970 as historic districts, it could obviously remind people of racial discrimination experienced by all minorities between 1920s and 1980s. That is why we fully negate the resolution No. 7240, or the ordinance No. 2359, please don't adopt the historic preservation ordinance. Thank you. Helen Xiong From: Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 4:14 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: 10 more people signed “Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法” New signatures Arcadia City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's supporters. Arcadia Residents : Protect Property Rights - 100% Voluntary HPO for Arcadia 反对非自愿的历史保护法 Petition by Solar Chiang · 10 supporters 10 more people signed in the last 8 hours RECENT SUPPORTERS Cierra Clawson Greensburg, · Mar 10, 2019 Josh Williams Denton, · Mar 09, 2019 Fatoumatta S. Jallow Bronx, · Mar 09, 2019 View petition ti it Gail Woten Manchester, IA · Mar 09, 2019 Abie Bangura Maple Shade, · Mar 09, 2019 View all 10 supporters CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action, or ask them for more information. Learn more. This notification was sent to citycouncil@ArcadiaCA.gov, the address listed as the decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a response to let the petition starter know. Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA -----Original Message----- From: pansy chak [ Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 7:44 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No More Regulation! Dear Councilman Peter Amundson and Arcadia City Council, The City has kept ignoring our protests. Despite the opinions of all the “experts”, Historic Districts are simply another scheme for government control of private property, and despite all the slick reassurances and arguments to the contrary, Historic Districts are another layer of bureaucracy. Property owners are told the Architectural Review Board or the Historic District Commission procedures, guidelines and ordinances are “fair, expeditious and predictable.” The facts do not support such statements. In December, 2000, the Owossa, Michigan, City Council passed the “Oliver Street Historic District” ordinance. Local residents were outraged when they learned how they had been hoodwinked by the council and by supporters of the plan with clever propaganda and underhanded tactics to give the appearance of broad public support. Former Councilman Burton Fox stated, “Why should it be up to a committee to determine what changes we may or may not make to our homes? We own the property, pay the taxes on it, and incur the expense of keeping it up.” On August 14, 2001, the residents voted to repeal the ordinance by a margin of 70—30 percent, sending a powerful message to the historic preservationists. Mark Owen, who led the repeal effort, was elected to the City Council in November, 2001. Owossa residents were fed up with dictatorial, command and control regulation. Tremendous and irreversible damages have already been done to us since 2017 with the draft of Historic Preservation Ordinance. Time and again it has proven that keeping silent and giving in to injustice will only make things worse. Enough is enough. We have to stand up and voice out! Therefore, we request the city council stop fully on the adopting HPO in Arcadia, apologize to our community and prevent this happen again. Thanks, Man Ming Chak Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: pansy chak [] Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 7:49 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: It's Historic? Who Says? No More HPO in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, Councilman Peter Amundson and Arcadia City Council, There are few people who would argue with the idea that some “things” are historic and worth preserving. The problem with current “preservationist” philosophy is most of the people promoting “historic preservation”, the self—anointed cultural elite, have abandoned the ideals of American civilization and the enduring truths of independence, self—reliance and the sanctity of private property rights. They are unable to distinguish between nauseatingly shallow historical fiction and real history. Truth, art, beauty and traditional values have been undermined by relativism, and the “preservationists” are incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. Arcadia City randomly listed 176 properties as potential Historic properties, as the residents asked for verification by city hired historians, then none of them are historical at all. Councilman Tom pointed out 12 gems which have to be protected by city council special overwrite rights. As of further verification by the city management team, there is not a list of 12 gems at all. Deciding what should be preserved is subjective. Each individual has his own ideals, which is all the more reason to keep decisions about historic preservation out of the realm of politics and out of the hands of inept government Boards and planning Commissions. So no more HPO. No more waste of tax payer's money and time. Please vote no. Thanks, Man Ming Chak -----Original Message----- From: pansy chak [t] Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:10 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov>; domlazz@arcadiaca.com Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia ，domlazz@arcadiaca.gov，jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov Dear City Managers and City councils, The 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society so that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. Thank you. Man Ming Chak Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: pansy chak Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:17 PM To: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov>; City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; domlazz@arcadiaca.com Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, I suggest the Council to change the Historical District requirement from 75% to 100% owner’s voluntary consent or just cancel it entirely. As Mr. Tom Beck pointed out in the last Council meeting, there are only about 12 gems in Arcadia that is worth preserving, so why should there be a Historic Districts? Historic Districts should be excluded in the ordinance. If individual owners want to preserve their homes then they can individually apply, why do we need to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts and force neighbor’s homes to be in a historic district? The Council already agreed to cancel 176 potential historic homes because they saw the strong objection coming from homeowners which mean the Council agrees that there is potential financial loss from homeowner’s houses being forced to turn historical. So it should be fair that Historical District be 100% voluntary as well—no double standards. No one deserves to be forced into being a historical home or being in a historical district. Why make people suffer? Some Councilman may say 75% is a high threshold and impossible to achieve, but why take the chance? If it is impossible why don’t we just cancel it? Why do we have to put it in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance historical districts should be 100% voluntary, just like potential individually historic properties. This has to be fair on both sides. Thank you. Man Ming Chak Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: pansy chak [] Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:23 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: No HPO， No more race discrimination, No resolution No. 7240, and No ordinance No. 2359 Dear Arcadia City councils, As residents of Arcadia, we always respect our history by visiting the existing designated historical landmarks, especially in LA Arboretum, quiet often, almost daily every year. We am sure there are a lot of special buildings here built over the time, by all of the honorable families here including ourselves. I fully agree with 80% of the people in the city council presented on Feb 19 2019. We are not demanding to preserve all of properties. It has to be voluntarily by the current property owners. Let’s review the history, institutional development finally began to catch up with the rest of Arcadia, visibly in the form of schools. First Ave school was constructed with 1919 bond funds to serve over 200 students. Many of this school’s students were the children of Japanese American flower and vegetable growers. The 1927 brochure for the AP Green subdivision sited just south of the Arcadia City limits illustrated the typical marketing approach for these 1920s development which included race- based deed restrictions to exclude any minorities “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.” Without further quote of our history, our land have been able to give the support to lives of native Americans, Spanish people, Japanese, Europeans, African Americans, now Asian as a majority of 67%. By preserving the tract style home built within 50 years before 1970 as historic districts, it could obviously remind people of racial discrimination experienced by all minorities between 1920s and 1980s. That is why we fully negate the resolution No. 7240, or the ordinance No. 2359, please don't adopt the historic preservation ordinance. Thank you. Man Ming Chak Sent from my iPhone From: Helen Lui Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:00 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui > Subject: No More Regulation! Dear Councilman Peter Amundson and Arcadia City Council, The City has kept ignoring our protests. Despite the opinions of all the "experts", Historic Districts are simply another scheme for government control of private property, and despite all the slick reassurances and arguments to the contrary, Historic Districts are another layer of bureaucracy. Property owners are told the Architectural Review Board or the Historic District Commission procedures, guidelines and ordinances are "fair, expeditious and predictable." The facts do not support such statements. In December, 2000, the Owossa, , Michigan, City Council passed the "Oliver Street Historic District" ordinance. Local residents were outraged when they learned how they had been hoodwinked by the council and by supporters of the plan with clever propaganda and underhanded tactics to give the appearance of broad public support. Former councilman Burton Fox stated, " Why should it be up to a committee to determine what changes we may or may not make to our homes? We own the property, pay the taxes on it, and incur the expense of keeping it up." On August 14, 2001, the residents voted to repeal the ordinance by a margin of 70-30 percent, sending a powerful message to the historic preservationists. Mark Owen, who led the repeal effort, was elected to the city Council in November, 2001. Owossa residents were fed up with dictatorial, command and control regulation. Tremendous and irreversible damages have already been done to us since 2017 with the draft of Historic Preservation Ordinance. Time and again it has proven that keeping silent and giving in to injustice will only make things worse. Enough is enough. We have to stand up and voice out! Therefore, we request the city council stop fully on the adopting HPO in Arcadia, apologize to our community and prevent this happen again. Thanks. Helen Lui From: Helen Lui [] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:15 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui < Subject: It's Historic? Who Says? No More HPO in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, Councilman Peter Amundson and Arcadia City Council, There are few people who would argue with the idea that some "things" are historic and worth preserving. The problem with current " preservationist" philosophy is most of the people promoting " historic preservation", the self-anointed cultural elite, have abandoned the ideals of American civilization and the enduring truths of independence, self-reliance and the sanctity of private property rights. They are unable to distinguish between nauseatingly shallow historical fiction and real history. Truth, art, beauty and traditional values have been undermined by relativism, and the "preservationists" are incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. Arcadia city randomly listed 176 properties as potential Historic properties, as the residents asked for verification by city hired historians, then none of them are historical at all. Councilman Tom pointed out 12 gems which have to be protected by city council special overwrite rights. As of further verification by the city management team, there is not a list of 12 gems at all. Deciding what should be preserved is subjective. Each individual has his own ideals, which is all the more reason to keep decisions about historic preservation out of the realm of politics and out of the hands of inept government Boards and planning commissions. So no more HPO, No more waste of tax payer's money and time. Please vote no. Thanks. Helen Lui From: Helen Lui [] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:24 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui > Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear City Managers and City councils, the 2/19 city council meeting has shown the majority of Arcadia residents are favoring 100% voluntary to be historical homes. If it is not going to be solely 100% voluntary then as City Councilman Roger Chandler has quoted that there will be litigation foreseeing in the future. In addition, it will also create unnecessary fear and stress to residents who fall under 25% involuntary. Councilman Roger Chandler is someone who knows the history of Arcadia and has brought Arcadia to becoming today's treasure. Roger Always based on the facts and history and raises with valid points. If there are only a handful of gems, then it is unnecessary to have historical district anymore. They have already been preserved under the national and state preservation registry. To my personal point of view only historical resources consultants are capable to judge and designated on gems. It is very judgmental for non professional. So before you name someone's home as historical, please ensure that the city or other historical entities have enough money and are willing to purchase the gems at a market price to minimize owner's loss. I would also like to suggest that anyone who supports HPO to make donations to Historical society s that this entity can help those who wants to save and maintain the gems or other future ones. thank you. Helen Lui From: Helen Lui ] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:40 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui > Subject: No More Historic District in Arcadia Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, I suggest the council to change the Historical District requirement from 75% to 100% owner's voluntary consent or just cancel it entirely. As Mr. Tom Beck pointed out in the last Council meeting, there are only about 12 gems in Arcadia that is worth preserving, so why should there be a Historic Districts? Historic Districts should be excluded in the ordinance. If individual owners want to preserve their homes then they can individually apply, why do we need to harm other neighbors by allowing the opportunity to create Historic Districts and force neighbor's homes to be in a historic district? The Council already agreed to cancel 176 potential historic homes because they saw the strong objection coming from homeowners which mean the Council agrees that there is potential financial loss from homeowner's houses being forced to turn historical. So it should be fair that Historical District be 100% voluntary as well - no double standards. No one deserves to be forced into being a historical home or being in a historical district. Why make people suffer? Some Councilman may say 75% is a high threshold and impossible to achieve, but why take the chance? If it is impossible why don't we just cancel it? Why do we have to put it in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance. If it is in the ordinance historical districts should be 100% voluntary, just like potential individually historic properties. This has to be fair on both sides. Thanks you Helen Lui From: Helen Lui ] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:50 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov>; Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui > Subject: No HPO or 100% voluntary HPO ( both individual and historical district) Dear Mayor Sho Tay, City Managers and City councils, Americans, who want to truly preserve their freedoms, culture, heritage, and their history, need to learn the difference in meaning between "legal" and "lawful". Private property rights, the right of due process, and the protection against involuntary servitude ( all violated by most Historic District Ordinances) are examples of lawful rights protected by our Constitution. Statutory enactments are legalities. Legislatures enact thousands of statutes each year, such as the enabling legislation permitting localities to pass Historic District Ordinances. Most of us refer to statutes as "laws", but to the extent statutory enactments undermine or are contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, they are not law, and should be defiantly resisted and defeated. Please stand up for our constitution and fully negate HPO or make 100% voluntary HPO ( both individual and historical district) in Arcadia. Thank you Helen Lui From: Helen Lui Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 12:09 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Helen Lui <> Subject: No HPO, No more race discrimination, no resolution. No 7240, and No ordinance No. 2359 Dear Arcadia City councils, We always respect our history by visiting the existing designated historical landmarks, especially in LA Arboretum, quiet often, almost daily every year. We are sure there are a lot of special building s here built over the time, by all of the honorable families here including ourselves. I fully agree with 80% of the people in the city council presented on Feb 19, 2019. We are not demanding to preserve all of properties. It has to be voluntarily by the current property owners. Let's reviews the history, institutional development finally began to catch up with the rest of Arcadia, visibly in the form of schools. First Ave school was constructed with 1919 bond funds to serve over 200 students. Many of this school's students were the children of Japanese American flower and vegetable growers. The 1927 brochure for the AP Green sub division sited just south of the Arcadia City limits illustrated the typical marketing approach for these 1920s development which included race-based deed restrictions to exclude any minorities " 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." Without further quote of our history, our land have been able to give the support to lives of native Americans, Spanish people, Japanese, Europeans, African Americans, now Asian as a majority of 67%. By preserving the tract style home built within 50 years before 1970 as historic districts, it could obviously remind people of racial discrimination experienced by all minorities between 1920s and 1980s. That is why we fully negate the resolution No. 7240, or the ordinance No. 2359, please don't adopt the historic preservation ordinance. Thank you. Helen Lui From: Dickson Tam ] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:14 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Respectful City council members Respectful City council members, As residents and property owners in Arcadia, we support a historic preservation effort that will balance the homeowners’ property rights and the need for the community to preserve the real historic gems in our city. Per the latest news from the city council meeting, the city is planning to pass an ordinance with the city override authority over homeowner’s objections and an unreasonably historic districts criteria that allows any number of homeowners to apply and form a historic district with 75% homeowners’ consensus. In other words, every one out of four homeowners will lose their property rights. This made the preservation ordinance an involuntary program in essence that violates property rights. If passed, the ordinance will negatively impact our property value and real estate market which is already rapidly dropping comparing to our neighboring cities. We as citizens are also aware that our city is facing severe financial challenges. The City has declared a fiscal emergency last month according to the flyers we received. What is the rush to pass an ordinance that will further hinder the city income and jeopardize residents’ life long savings and retirement fund? When citizens are willing to give to help the city why does the city keep taking? When the city is in such deep deficits what incentives can homeowners get? Mills act is not funded by other cities or county but by ourselves. We urge the city to take out the city override and historic district criteria from the ordinance. We also think it’s a must for the citizens to vote on this ordinance instead of having a few council members decide the fate of our properties. We request the City to put the ordinance on 2020 election ballot for the people to vote! Sincerely, Dickson Tam ————————— Concerned Arcadian residents Attachment No. 3 of PC Staff Report Attachment No. 3 February 19, 2019 Staff Report, includes: x Public Comments Received After Planning Commission Meeting x Revised Fees and Potential Incentives 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 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 several years: x 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. x 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. x September 5, 2017 – City Council Study Session to discuss various levels of criteria (including local) and issues related to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. x October 6, 2017 – City released the first draft of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Historic Preservation Ordinance February 19, 2019 Page 3 of 12 x 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. x 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. x October 3, 2018 – City Council Study Session to discuss proposed changes to the draft Ordinance. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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 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: x 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. x 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 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 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 entities 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 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 a 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 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 treated. 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 there 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 did receive information from the property owner at 841 Singingwood Drive that the house does not meet 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 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 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: x Staff Report x Draft Ordinance Provided to Planning Commission x List of Properties Eligible as Historic Resources x Historic Context Statement x Historic Preservation Fact Sheet x Comments Received from Public Prior to Planning Commission Meeting x Proposed Fees and Incentives x Preliminary Exemption Assessment Public Comments Received After 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 Cons titutional 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 oldbowling alley would neverbe 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. 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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n 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 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. Supplemental Public Comments- Received Following City Council Agenda Packet Preparation February 19, 2019 February 19, 2019 Submitted electronically Arcadia Mayor and City Council Attention: Jason Kruckeberg 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 Email: jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov RE: Draft Arcadia Historic Preservation and Historic Resource Survey Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Resources Survey which, if adopted, will serve as the cornerstone for Arcadia’s new historic preservation program. The Conservancy applauds the City of Arcadia for its leadership in directing the preparation of these key documents; their adoption will mark a major milestone for the City and significantly raise its current grade of “F” in our countywide Preservation Report Card. Yet we have strong concerns with two primary recommendations made by the Planning Commission that would needlessly undermine historic preservation in Arcadia: rejecting the survey of historic resources and amending the draft ordinance’s Designation Procedures (Sec. 9103.17.070) to remove the City’s ability to designate an exceptional property under extraordinary circumstances if threatened. The Historic Resources Survey The Historic Resources Survey is an invaluable educational tool to inform city officials and residents about the rich built heritage of their community, and to assist in thoughtful development and environmental planning. As the staff report clearly points out, “being on the list does not result in automatic designation.” Rather, it is a snapshot in time that identifies the presence of historically significant sites throughout the City. A Historic Resources Survey provides clarity, not restrictions. We strongly urge the Council to adopt the Survey as a sound planning tool that will benefit everyone by providing clarity and specifically aid the City in its CEQA obligations for future project review. Section 9103.17.070: Designation Procedures Section 9103.17.070 (Designation Procedures) of the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance was written to require owner consent for landmark nominations to proceed, but gave the City the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to exercise its authority to designate a property without owner consent by a vote of the City Council. In cases where a significant Arcadia historic place might be endangered, this provision offered the City some flexibility and ability to protect a historically significant property if desired. Situations where such a policy is utilized arise very rarely, yet it is unwise for a jurisdiction to omit such language and forfeit their authority entirely. Without this mechanism in the ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission, the City could find itself with no authority to protect a beloved historic place despite broad-based constituent support. We therefore strongly urge the Council to restore the language of this section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Conservancy strongly supports Arcadia’s efforts to protect its irreplaceable architectural and cultural legacy while giving property owners preservation incentives and certainty in the development review process. We therefore urge the City Council to reject the recommendations from the Planning Commission and adopt the Historic Resources Survey list and Historic Preservation Ordinance with original language from Section 9103.17.070 restored. About the Los Angeles Conservancy: The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with nearly 6,000 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or afine@laconservancy.org or Marcello Vavala at mvavala@laconservancy.org should you have any questions and if we can be of assistance. Sincerely, Adrian Scott Fine Director of Advocacy February 15, 2019 Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance The great Victorian philosopher-historian Thomas Carlyle declared that history is neither more nor less than the biography of great men, and the American philosopher George Santayana famously pronounced that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. The Arcadia City Council approved the demolishing of “Anoakia” the grand estate of, my great-great-grandmother, Anita M. Baldwin. There are still many historic and architecturally significant structures & sites within the City of Arcadia that need to be protected. Clara Baldwin built an estate in Arcadia, which still stands today. Clara Baldwin’s home is at risk of being destroyed, like Anoakia. The current owner of the property plans to demolish the home and subdivide the property. As a community, we need to show respect to Arcadia’s founding family, past residents, business owners, and City by honoring these sites with the proper designations. On February 19, 2019, I ask you, the Council to adopt the Historic Resources Survey and restore language back into the Historic Preservation Ordinance giving you, the Council the ability to designate without owner consent in exceptional circumstances. If you do not do something today to save Arcadia’s landmarks and historically significant structures for future generations, there will be no physical representation of Arcadia’s past. Please vote YES and SAVE the Arcadia that my family founded in 1903. If Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin were sitting next to you he would know how important it is to protect what he helped to create in the San Gabriel Valley region. Once Arcadia is lost we can never get it back. Mrs. Margaux L. Viera 820 North Verano Drive Glendora, CA 91741 (626) 399-9621 gauxviera@gmail.com  February 17, 2019 City of Arcadia HOP (Historic Preservation Ordinance) City Council Meeting February 19, 2019 My name is Heather Gibson. I am Elias Jackson "Lucky" Baldwin's great, great, great granddaughter. Our family is very passionate and involved in preserving our family history. Just as the historical markers state, "History Lives Here", let us make that stand true and tall. Examples of Arcadia's vibrant history are represented in the 180 structures found within the Historic Survey. There are a number of historically significant structures that encompass Arcadia are some of the finest representations of their era. Not protecting them from being destroyed is careless and irresponsible. The City of Arcadia has an opportunity to reverse its lack of Historic Preservation. As a community, we will never be able to bring "Anoakia" back, but we can stop the blatant disregard for what Baldwin created by founding, Arcadia. On February 19, 2019, I ask you, the Council to adopt the Historic Resources Survey and restore language back into the Historic Preservation Ordinance giving you, the Council the ability to designate without owner consent in exceptional circumstances. Clara Baldwin Stocker's, "Twin Oaks" home is one of Arcadia's oldest homes. “Twin Oaks” is also one of the last Baldwin family private residences still standing. The current owner, Dr. Kumar plans to demolish the home to subdivide the property. With the heartbreak and devastating loss of "Anoakia" only you, the Council can stop another historic tragic loss. Ms. Heather D. Gibson (626) 803-7611  From: McMahon [mailto:jomac118@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 7:07 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance 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 From: Thomas F Duffy [mailto:thomasfduffy@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:14 AM To: Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com>; Peter Amundson <pamundson@arcadiaca.gov>; City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Tom Beck <tbeck@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: FW: Meeting Tuesday February 19th @ 7:00 pm To Sho Tay, Peter Amundson, Roger Chandler, and Tom Beck, First off, thank you for taking the time to serve our City. It is a great place to live. We appreciate all that you do. My wife and I have owned for 27 years one of the properties on the preservation list. We expect to live here the remainder of our lives and then leave the property to our two daughters, who will sell it and split the proceeds. If the proposal you are considering passes and is not voluntary, this will greatly reduce the value of our home and what our daughters will receive. Please make this ordinance voluntary. For those that wish to preserve their property they can. But please do not prevent my wife and I from passing on our estates to our daughters. Thank you, Tom Duffy 1125 S. 4th Ave From: Troy Kuo, Broker Realtor [mailto:troykuo@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 6:54 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Danny Shieh <danny@goldstarins.com>; Troy Kuo <troykuo@yahoo.com> Subject: about City Council Meeting (2/19/2019) To whom this may concern, My name is Troy Kuo and my property at 2431 Florence Ave, Arcadia has been placed on a list of possible historic designations. I will be attending the City Council Meeting on February 19 at 7pm and will raise my concerns with the ordinance being proposed. Please find the letter attached that details my concerns regarding the ordinance. Thanks for your help; Troy Kuo ------------------------------------------------- Valleycrest Realty, Inc I Direct 626.802.0335 1108 S Baldwin Ave, #207, Arcadia, CA 91007 From: Brian Abernathy <brian@abernathyins.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 7:15 PM To: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Arcadia Historic Preservation & Historic Resource Survey Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, On behalf of the Abernathy Family (614 Sunset, 316 El Dorado, 941 W Huntington, 420 Fairview, 427 W Duarte Rd, 133 E Duarte Rd), I want to express my support for the historic preservation ordinance. My parents have owned residential and commercial real estate in Arcadia since the late 70’s, and my brother, sister and I followed in their footsteps by also purchasing real estate in town. We’ve operated the family insurance and real estate business here since 1980. Over the years, we’ve witnessed a huge amount of development. While some of the projects have been tastefully done, we worry about losing historically significant structures. Who wants Arcadia to look like Murrieta??? I imagine that list is quite short, and that’s why it’s important for the city council to work toward a well-drafted historic preservation ordinance! My wife and I “saved” an 1881 home in Sierra Madre from redevelopment thanks to sellers who accepted our offer instead of a developer’s 48k higher all-cash offer! After closing escrow in 2013, we began the process to have it declared a historic landmark. A year later we began a historically-mindful restoration which continues to this day. This topic is very near and dear to me. If Arcadia doesn’t move forward with adopting a historic preservation plan and historic resource survey, the town will quickly lose its short list of historically significant gem which remain. Sincerely, Brian Abernathy Agent 626-574-1000 main | 626-241-9674 direct | 626-574-1068 fax www.abernathyins.com CA-DOI Individual License# 0A88657 CA-DOI Business Entity License# 0643009 From: Scott Wardlaw [mailto:swardlaw78@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 8:11 AM To: April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Residential survey and historic preservation ordinance As a concerned resident of Arcadia, l wish to express my strong support for the residential survey and historic preservation ordinance proposed for the upcoming City Council meeting. Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message----- From: Katy Hertel [mailto:katyhertel@me.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:29 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Proposed Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Mayor Tay and Councilpersons Verlato, Beck, Chandler and Amundson: I’m writing in support of the proposed Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance. My mother Susan Lautmann Hertel worked with the Millard Sheets Studio to produce the mosaic murals \ and stained glass windows that were originally designed for Home Savings and Loan, which is now Chase Bank on 60 E. Huntington Dr. Claremont Heritage has recognized the historical importance of art works created by the Millard Sheets Studio. This art work is also widely recognized and valued by numerous art institutions and historians. Thus, the Chase Bank building and its art works seem worthy of preservation. It makes sense that an ordinance to preserve historic locations would be an asset to the City of Arcadia. The history of Arcadia is interesting and unique and it makes Arcadia so much more than a series of generic strip malls and developments. The unique historical qualities of Arcadia attract people and businesses. Therefore it seems beneficial to create an ordinance to care for Arcadia’s historic buildings and locations. Thank you for your consideration Respectfully, Katy Hertel 2346 El Molino Ave Altadena CA 91001 katyhertel@me.com From: Sandy Snider [mailto:ssnider626@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 2:11 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Sho, April, Peter, Roger and Tom, As I believe you all know, I do not live in the City of Arcadia, but I have been closely involved with its history and its historic integrity for many years. Pat McAdam and I were proud to donate our copyright on the book Arcadia: Where Ranch and City Meet to the Friends of Arcadia Public Library, and we hoped that it might encourage others to realize that a City’s history should be more than just photographs in a book. I have attended public meetings and listened as homeowners of potential “listed” resources express dismay that they might be part of the dynamic of a City with a storied past. Missing in the discussions have been the voices of the City’s elected officers, thus I send my great encouragement and hope that you will use your bully pulpits at the upcoming Council Meeting to support the acceptance of the Historic Preservation Survey List and move forward with a pilot incentive program. I have talked with friends, including those who have been upset with seeing their own homes on The List, and the message I am receiving is “fear” rather than “hope.” I do understand the limits you work under when Council is not officially in session, but Tuesday is your opportunity to help calm public fears and support the diligent work of those City employees you count upon to provide due diligence. City staff have been phenomenal in their efforts to explain, answer questions and walk people through the process of understanding that a Survey List is not a declaration of war on their property rights. Other cities have done this, most with great long-term success. I was singularly dismayed to read the Arcadia Planning Commission’s dismissal of staff recommendations to adopt the Historic Preservation Survey List. Burying the evidence (provided by an impartial and highly respected architectural resource firm) is not a solution. It seems even worse than kicking-the-can-down the-road and hoping that a photograph or a “History Used to Live Here” marker might make amends fifty years from now. Thank you for listening to all sides of this discussion. Sandy Snider Qualified Historian Curator Emeritus, LA County Arboretum From: Suzanne S [mailto:ssposato@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:29 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HIstoric Preservation Ordinance Dear Honorable Council Members, I am writing to ask you to consider creating a Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of Arcadia. I am a 36 year resident of Arcadia. One of the reasons my husband and I moved to Arcadia was due to the look and feel of the town. We appreciated the the beautiful homes and the way the streets were designed, the magnificent oaks as well as the well designed and charming architecture. The homes were not “cookie cutter” as you would find in other towns in Southern California. In fact, all of the homes in our neighborhood were custom designed during the time when so many homes were built to look exactly alike. We loved that Arcadia had a history with older homes and buildings. In 2000, I was the Chairman for the Pasadena Showcase House. We chose to restore the home at 995 Hampton in the Upper Rancho. We chose that home for our Showcase because it had a wonderful history as well as designed by Roland Coate. Roland Coate was well established and his designs for homes were in high demand. He designed that home for the owners of the Barker Brothers Furniture Company in 1941. There are other homes in Arcadia designed by famous architects. One of those homes is on Rodeo. That home was designed by Wallace Neff who’s architectural designs are still in high demand. To loose these treasures would be a loss for the entire community. They give the neighborhood, character and history. The loss of our historic past would take away the charm and soul of Arcadia. Sincerely, Suzanne Sposato Oak Meadow Road From: Brian Worley [mailto:rbrianworley@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:53 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Mayor Tay and Councilpersons Verlato, Beck, Chandler and Amundson: I am writing in support of the proposed Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance. Both my aunt, Nancy Colbath, and I worked in the Millard Sheets studio to produce the mosaic murals that were designed for Home Savings and Loan buildings, one of which is now the Chase Bank on 60 E. Huntington Dr. As I hope you are aware, Adam Arenson has written an award-winning book on Millard Sheets and the creation and legacy of the Home Savings Mid-Century Commercial Architecture in California and beyond. About six years ago the Los Angeles Conservancy devoted a weekend to tours of the Millard Sheets studio site as well as some of the mosaic murals in the vicinity. Other cities continue to take great pride in these buildings and their art work, both inside and out. The City of Montebello recently celebrated the restoration and adaptive re-use of the former Home Savings building in their community. I am currently serving on the City of Claremont Architectural Commission. Claremont has recognized the significance of its architectural heritage and is currently revisiting its Municipal Codes to protect this heritage. Arcadia has distinctive buildings that greatly enhance the “downtown” experience-architecture that reflects historic qualities unique to Arcadia, which in turn attract people and businesses. Creating an ordinance to ensure care for your historic buildings and locations recognizes the value of these legacies and preserves their qualities so that they might inform and enhance the experience of future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Brian Worley 1132 Morningside Drive Claremont, California 91711 -----Original Message----- From: algiese@dc.rr.com [mailto:algiese@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 12:49 PM To: Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com> Subject: Arcadia City Council Meeting on Feb. 19, 2019, Preserve Arcadia History Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members of the City of Arcadia, California. On your February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting, I ask you, the City Council of Arcadia, to adopt the Historic Resource Survey and restore language back into the Historic Preservation Ordinance giving you, the City Council the ability to designate without owner consent in exceptional circumstances. My name is Barbara Mullender Giese and I am the great-granddaughter of Clara Baldwin. My great- grandmother's home in the City of Arcadia is one of the few significant architectural structures that need to be protected. Clara Baldwin's Home is at risk of being destroyed just like Anoakia my great- grandaunts home. The current owner of Clara Baldwin's home has plans to demolish the Home and subdivide the property. As members of the Arcadia community I urge you to show respect for the historical structures by honoring the few remaining sites with the proper designation. Please vote "YES" and save a small part of the Arcadia my family founded in 1903. I appreciate your support and assistance. Mrs. Barbara Mullender Giese 61499 Topaz Drive La Quinta, Ca 92253 From: MARGAUX VIERA [mailto:gauxviera@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:15 PM To: Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com>; April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov>; Peter Amundson <pamundson@arcadiaca.gov>; Tom Beck <tbeck@arcadiaca.gov>; City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov>; Dominic Lazzaretto <domlazz@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Marcello Vavala <mvavala@laconservancy.org> Subject: Re: Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance 2019 https://arcadiasbest.com/2017/11/clara-baldwin-stockers-home/ One of Arcadia oldest homes known as “Twin Oaks,” remains occupied today, and is in excellent condition. Located in the 200 block on West Foothill Blvd., almost hidden by trees and shrubbery, Clara Baldwin Stocker’s home is a true treasure of the past. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:40 PM MARGAUX VIERA <gauxviera@gmail.com> wrote: February 15, 2019 Arcadia Historic Preservation Ordinance The great Victorian philosopher-historian Thomas Carlyle declared that history is neither more nor less than the biography of great men, and the American philosopher George Santayana famously pronounced that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. The Arcadia City Council approved the demolishing of “Anoakia” the grand estate of, my great-great- grandmother, Anita M. Baldwin. There are still many historic and architecturally significant structures & sites within the City of Arcadia that need to be protected. Clara Baldwin built an estate in Arcadia, which still stands today. Clara Baldwin’s home is at risk of being destroyed, like Anoakia. The current owner of the property plans to demolish the home and subdivide the property. As a community, we need to show respect to Arcadia’s founding family, past residents, business owners, and City by honoring these sites with the proper designations. On February 19, 2019, I ask you, the Council to adopt the Historic Resources Survey and restore language back into the Historic Preservation Ordinance giving you, the Council the ability to designate without owner consent in exceptional circumstances. If you do not do something today to save Arcadia’s landmarks and historically significant structures for future generations, there will be no physical representation of Arcadia’s past. Please vote YES and SAVE the Arcadia that my family founded in 1903. If Elias Jackson “Lucky” Baldwin were sitting next to you he would know how important it is to protect what he helped to create in the San Gabriel Valley region. Once Arcadia is lost we can never get it back. Mrs. Margaux L. Viera 820 North Verano Drive Glendora, CA 91741 (626) 399-9621 gauxviera@gmail.com From: tranzow@sprintmail.com [mailto:tranzow@sprintmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:52 AM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: Meeting of February 19, 2019 - Designation of homes as Historical Properties Dear Council Members: I learned recently of the consideration of delegation of authority to designate residential property as historical by parties other than the owner. This would place restrictions on how the property might be renovated or replaced. I have lived at 1230 Ramona Road for over 46 years in a house built in 1953. My wife and I are over 8o years old and am nearing a time when my house exceeds our needs. Although it would be difficult ti image any historical designation attached to the property, I would strongly oppose any effort to do so by a party or parties other than my wife and myself as we own the property without any encumbrance. Further, such constraint would result immediately reduce the market value of the property. We strongly oppose any council ordinance that would impose such constraint on our property. Frank H. Tranzow and Matilda W. Tranzow 1230 Ramona Road From: Usha Gupta [mailto:ushaguptamd@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:30 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HPO My name is Usha Gupta. I live at 1103 Rancho Road, Arcadia , Ca 91006. I want to let you know that I oppose HPO as it takes away rights from the property owners from their property which is not fair. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Usha Gupta -----Original Message----- From: nirmal kumar [mailto:doctornirmal@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:40 PM To: City Council Email <CityCouncil@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: HPO meeting tonight. This is to formally oppose the HPO being discussed on following grounds 1. Procedure itself was flawed. I did not- I say again did not receive any notification from the city until Dec 018. This is contrary to what I heard in the hearing at planning commision. I believe it should restart the process and give certified or mailing certified by an employee that it was mailed and she put in the mail box under penalty. 2. Intentionally last meeting, I was told took place sometimes in November- around thanksgiving time so that even those who may have been notified ( Most did not like me) may not attend the meeting 3. It takes away my property rights. 4. It is financially detrimental to me and my family both to maintain and loss on sale. 5. People that want their property to put on the LIST, should be free to do so. You do not need HPO for that. 6. All council members live in homes. Those that are supporting this, are changing landscape of Arcadia. Technically, they will be remembered forever. Good or bad. Therefore their residences become of utmost significance to Arcadians. I suggest they all agree to put a CC & R on their properties that their homes will be officially historical and cannot be changed. After all, without their action, HPO would never even be considered. 7. I believe an item like this should be done with unanimous vote. 8. I believe there may be an attempt in this to prevent Arcadians to sell their homes to certain ethnic background who will then build big homes. (Without paying attention to current owners who will not be not be able to sell and either retire or pass on to their heirs.) 9. Besides these all other points that will be brought up at the hearing tonight, be included by reference if not added here now. 10. Huge property at Anoakia was allowed to be demolished and developed so why suddenly this. Are our Rights less than those of the owners of Anoakia? 11. Loss of property tax base to the city at a time when city's finances are not great, to say the least. Having new houses built will increase property tax of each of these homes to many folds of current opposite if this is allowed to pass. 12. Cost to city to fight litigation on top of decreasing revenue will force city to raise taxes, poor management. Thanks Nirmal Kumar 291 W Foothill Blvd, Arcadia CA From: Caroline Blake [mailto:cablake758@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:08 PM To: April Verlato <averlato@arcadiaca.gov>; Tom Beck <tombeckarc@gmail.com>; Sho Tay <ShoTayforArcadia@gmail.com>; Peter Amundson <peter@keeparcadiagreat.com> Cc: Mary Buttice <MButtice@arcadiaca.gov> Subject: A private real estate agent disagrees with allegations made about proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance in Arcadia Dear Arcadia Council Members: Please consider this statement from Patrick Brandt, a real estate professional who has sold over 200 Arcadia properties and sells privately in Pasadena Altadena & elsewhere. Check out his website to confirm this 200 properties figure. I asked Patrick in January about 5 allegations made against the proposed Ordinance here. Patrick Brandt had not experienced any of those problems affecting his clients. He does not have time to research Arcadia home sales figures and then appear is our meeting tonight as a favor. These anecdotal comments are it is based on almost twenty years of his sales experiences. His website is listed below. Thank you. Caroline Blake Coronado Drive Resident Arcadia, CA 91007 Begin forwarded message: From: Patrick Brandt <patrick.brandt@gmail.com> Subject: Re: A Favor : Can you answer YES or NO before 5pm today? Date: January 8, 2019 at 4:45:05 PM PST To: Caroline Blake <cablake758@gmail.com> Hi Caroline, I am not aware of any of the 5 questions in regards to HP have had any negative implications and I have represented a number of buyers and sellers in regards to purchasing or selling their historical or character homes. Hope you are doing great and that this helps ! Patrick Brandt | 626.222.1228 | www.privatelysoldproperties.com Public Listings | 3657 Ivydale $3,988,000 | Jennilsa, Solvang - $2,799,000 | Oak Knoll - $3,000,000 San Remo $3,079,000 SOLD | San Rafael $3,125,000 SOLD | Mar Vista SOLD $1,900,000 | San Pasqual $1,575,000 SOLD | Morada, Altadena SOLD $1,300,000 Arroyo Area $1,100,000 PENDING Private Listings | Langham Area $1,850,000 | Arroyo Area $5,488,000 On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:39 AM Caroline Blake <cablake758@gmail.com> wrote: Patrick, if you can spare 5 minutes, an you help me with a quick YES or NO to five questions below ? Unlike Arcadia, Pasadena city supports Historical Preservation Ordinance(HP/HPO). As Pasadena real estate professional, are you aware of: 1. Homeowner Property devalued in Pasadena as a result of HP ? 2. Mortgage companies refusing a lower interest on home loans in Pasadena—because of HP? 3. Pasadena city government seizing homeowner property due to the power of HP ? 4. Overall city reputation declining as a result of HP ? 5. School budgets declining due to HP ? Negative allegations to the proposed Historical Preservation Ordinance HPO) have caused rumors. AEG (Architectural Resource Group in Pasadena) surveyed every home or business & art, artifacts, bridges in the city & formed a report on implementing HPO. Tonight residents opposing HPO will have 5 minutes bring their objections & facts evidence to our five Planning Commissioners. A final recommendation will then be sent to Arcadia City Council to either support (implement), stall or kill the pending Ordinance. The HPO has been ongoing since 2016 without a unified & concessions have already been made. From: Marla Felber <mfelber@fkdesigngroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:38 PM To: Jason Kruckeberg <jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov> Cc: Marla J Felber <mfelber@fkdesigngroup.com> Subject: Draft Arcadia Historic Preservation and Historic Resource Survey February 19, 2019 Submitted electronically Arcadia Mayor and City Council Attention: Jason Kruckeberg 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 Email: jkruckeberg@arcadiaca.gov RE: Draft Arcadia Historic Preservation and Historic Resource Survey Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historical Resource Survey. I am a preservation consultant who currently lives and works in the San Gabriel Valley. For the last 30 years I have worked with Cities and Owners on their properties using preservation ordinances and survey’s. It is an important tool to help property owners understand their properties in a valuable enriching way, without this document so many significant resources could be lost. The City of Arcadia is at a cross road. Some significant buildings have already been lost but some still exist. The survey will allow property owner’s invaluable information about their properties and potentially see their properties in anew light. I have witnessed many a time when an owner learns information about their properties and have taken the next step in either preserving more buildings or reaching out to previous owners. Please support The Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historical Resource Survey, it such a valuable resource. Regards, Marla Felber Ph. 626-614-0023 8341 Halford Street San Gabriel, CA 91775 Attachment No. 4 Minutes from the January 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Attachment No. 5 Planning Commission Packet, dated 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