The Historic Preservation Commission held an ad hoc meeting Wednesday to discuss the draft update Historic Resources Survey and Historic Context Statement for the R2, R3, and R4 Multi-Family Zoning Districts.
The meeting, led by Antonio Castillo, senior planner with the Current and Historic Preservation Planning Division, included city consultants Amanda Duane and Teresa Grimes, who provided an overview of the historic context statement and survey updates.
Castillo mentioned that the goal of the meeting was for the ad hoc committee to review the updated draft report, provide comments to staff and consultants, and receive public feedback.
Amanda Yoder provided a project update, explaining that it was a phased project initiated during the COVID-19 era. The first phase involved preparing a draft historic context statement update, reviewed by the ad hoc committee. The second phase included conducting a reconnaissance survey and preparing a survey update for the R2, R3, and R4 zones, extending the study period through 1984. This phase involved community outreach, meetings with the preservation alliance, and presenting at the Hollywood Preservation Celebration.
Yoder detailed the survey methodology, which included a reconnaissance survey of approximately 2,100 parcels in West Hollywood, focusing on properties that retained integrity and excluding heavily altered properties. The team conducted property-specific research, including building permits and historic maps, and evaluated properties for eligibility based on significance and integrity. The evaluations were recorded on DPR forms, and the results were summarized in a survey report.
The survey identified 66 updated evaluations from a 2008 survey, 60 properties through the reconnaissance survey, 37 through public comment, nine expedited reviews, and two potential district areas identified through public comment. The city requested a reconnaissance matrix, leading to the identification of an additional 50 properties comparable to those already evaluated.
Yoder confirmed that the team conducted 66 individual evaluations, each with a DPR form, and included two potential district areas with district records attached. She clarified that the properties highlighted in yellow in the matrix, totaling 50, deserved a second look and would be evaluated in the next phase. These additional evaluations would be completed before presenting the findings to the full Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
Yoder reported that, excluding the 50 properties pending evaluation, the survey identified 70 properties eligible for local, state, and/or national significance, 86 properties ineligible, and 16 properties not visible, flagged for further review upon receiving project applications. The team identified a potential historic district on Vista Street with 22 contributing and five non-contributing properties, which appeared eligible for local listing. They also reviewed a block on Crescent Heights but did not find it eligible as a district, although some properties were individually significant.
The next steps include additional evaluations from the reconnaissance matrix, specifically the 50 properties that were highlighted. The team will respond to comments received from commissioners and the public, update the survey report accordingly, and then present it to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and city council. This will conclude the consultant’s portion of the work. The city plans to incorporate the findings into a new database system, replacing the now-defunct Ruskin Arc database, to display the information to the public.
The Ruskin Arc database, created in 2016-2017, was used by the public and staff for property searches based on commercial survey evaluations. However, the company running the database ceased operations, necessitating a transition to a new system. The city is now working on implementing the Arches database system, used by several municipalities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. The new system will include information from the current survey, the 2017 commercial survey, and the initial 1986 survey.
The meeting then transitioned to a discussion among commissioners. One commissioner inquired about the Ruskin Arc database and its replacement. Antonio Castillo explained that Ruskin Arc was integrated into the city’s preservation website, providing property search capabilities. Due to the unexpected shutdown of Ruskin Arc, the city is transitioning to the Arches system, which will host all the historic data and survey information.
Castillo noted that the transition to the Arches system is under way, with the contract recently entered into. The company handling the data transfer anticipates completing the process quickly, potentially by the summer, though no specific date is provided. This transition will enable the city to maintain a robust and accessible database for public and staff use, continuing the work initiated with the Ruskin Arc system.
There were specific questions about the content of the document, such as the definition of construction criteria found on page 46. The criteria, listed as federal, state, and local designations (e.g., C3 A1), may not be immediately clear to all readers. It was recommended that these criteria be defined somewhere in the document to aid in understanding.
Overall, the meeting emphasized the importance of a detailed, accurate survey and the need for thorough review and feedback. The transition to the new Arches database system will support this effort by providing a robust platform for accessing historic property data. The collaborative effort between the city, consultants, and the public aims to ensure that West Hollywood’s historic resources are documented and preserved effectively.
In the section on residential architectural styles starting on page 72, each style is defined by eligibility standards and integrity considerations. The question was raised about whether these standards were boilerplate language or newly adapted for this document. It was clarified that the language was specifically tailored to the architectural styles found in West Hollywood, adjusting the periods of significance based on the earliest and latest known examples.
The tailoring of the document involved adjusting the periods of significance according to the known architectural examples in West Hollywood. This approach ensures that the document accurately reflects the city’s architectural history. Adjustments were made after conducting a reconnaissance survey to align the document with the actual population of buildings in West Hollywood.
There was a question about the consistency of architectural styles across different contexts within West Hollywood. It was noted that the same team conducted both the residential and commercial surveys, ensuring consistency. However, commercial and residential buildings, while having similar styles, are distinct categories, and efforts were made to maintain this consistency.
The tailoring of the document involved adjusting the periods of significance according to the earliest and latest known architectural examples in West Hollywood. This ensured that the document accurately reflects the city’s architectural history. Adjustments were made after conducting a reconnaissance survey to align the document with the actual population of buildings in the area.
There was a concern about the consistency of architectural styles across different contexts within West Hollywood. The same team conducted both the residential and commercial surveys to ensure consistency. However, it was noted that commercial and residential buildings, while having similar styles, are distinct categories. Efforts were made to maintain consistency across these different contexts.
The discussion highlighted concerns about the narrow periods of significance for certain styles like Streamline Moderne and Art Deco. These narrow timeframes were based on actual examples found in West Hollywood. It was noted that if inconsistencies were identified, adjustments to the periods of significance could be made. Feedback on specific themes that seemed too narrow was welcomed for potential revisions.
A notable observation was the absence of an early modern or straightforward modern sub-theme within the modernism category. The document begins the modernism theme in the 1920s but includes only Deco, Streamline, Mid-century, and Late Modern sub-themes. This was considered unusual since modernism extends earlier than 1949. The response indicated that the themes were based on the built environment encountered during the survey. If no examples of early modernism were found, this could explain the absence of an early modern sub-theme.
Gail Ostergren, a Historic Preservation commissioner, asked about the Rancho La Brea boundaries highlighted discrepancies in the document’s maps and descriptions. It was pointed out that the boundaries mentioned did not align with the map on page 14. This discrepancy would need to be reconciled to ensure accuracy. Additionally, the context of certain areas like Eugene Plummer’s 150 acres needed clarification.
The discussion highlighted the typologies defined for residential buildings in the survey, specifically Type A (single buildings with five or more units in an ‘I’ or ‘L’ shape). There was concern that these definitions might be too narrow, as they might exclude buildings that don’t fit precisely into these categories. The suggestion was made to include rectangular buildings and reassess the definitions to avoid unnecessary restrictions.
The topic of “Stucco Boxes” and “Dingbats” was also addressed, particularly regarding their evaluation and eligibility. The Riviera at 1035 Sierra Bonita was cited as an example that will be evaluated in the next batch of properties.
The conversation also touched on the need for more specific guidance regarding the impact of retrofits on the historical integrity of buildings. For example, steel columns added to buildings like those at 1035 Sierra Bonita should be evaluated to determine if they still convey historical significance despite modifications. This guidance is essential for maintaining the integrity of historically significant buildings.
The eligibility standards for post-war apartment sub-types were questioned, with Type A and Type B specifically defined. There was curiosity about whether there might be additional types that do not fit these specific rectangular forms. The suggestion was to explore the possibility of other configurations to ensure comprehensive coverage of all relevant building types.
Clarifications were requested on the historical references, such as the burst of high-rise construction following the repeal of the height limit ordinance. It was suggested to specify whether “the city” referred to West Hollywood or another city, as this section also discussed Los Angeles.
An overarching question was raised about single-family residences within multifamily zones, especially those remodeled in Hollywood Regency style. The survey did include single-family residences within these zones, evaluating them based on their architectural styles and property types. This ensures that all relevant structures, regardless of their original or current use, are considered in the survey.
During public comment, Kathy Blaivas raised several important points during the meeting. She emphasized the potential benefits of the Mills Act contract for property owners, particularly regarding the resale value of their properties, even if they do not currently benefit from the tax incentives. She thanked the commission for their hard work and expressed her hopes for the project’s success.
Blaivas highlighted specific properties on Vista Street, noting inconsistencies in their evaluations. She suggested that two properties, 1108 North Vista and an adjacent one, should both be reconsidered as contributing structures to a potential historic district. She also questioned the evaluation of a Spanish-style duplex at 1215 North Vista, arguing that the windows appeared original despite being noted as replacements in the survey.
Victor Omelczenko from the West Hollywood Preservation Alliance (WHPA) echoed some of Bliss’s concerns and provided additional feedback. He encouraged the commissioners to review WHPA’s submitted comments, particularly regarding the dingbats and the potential historic district on DeLongpre Avenue. Omelczenko emphasized the importance of considering these properties’ historical and architectural significance.
Omelczenko expressed support for recognizing the significance of dingbats, noting that they represent an important period in residential development. He mentioned that the City of Los Angeles has recognized dingbat neighborhoods as historically significant, suggesting that West Hollywood should similarly consider reevaluating dingbat properties for their historical value.
The conversation also touched on the difficulty of identifying historically significant buildings related to the LGBTQ community in West Hollywood. Omelczenko mentioned that while the survey only goes up to 1984, efforts are being made to identify more properties associated with notable LGBTQ figures. He highlighted the home of Jeanne Cordova, a lesbian activist, as an example and promised to provide additional information as it becomes available.
Blaivas and Omelczenko’s comments underscored the importance of thorough and accurate evaluations, particularly for properties that might be overlooked or undervalued. They both stressed the need for clear communication and outreach to property owners to ensure they understand the benefits and implications of historic designation.
Lynn Russell emphasized the importance of preserving the sense of place in West Hollywood, given its small geographic area. She advocated for easy public access to accurate and consistent documents, enabling residents to understand and engage with the historical context of their neighborhoods.
Russell highlighted the unique historical flow of original structures on Crescent Heights Boulevard, which includes local, state, and national designations. She suggested making historical information accessible would encourage residents to explore and appreciate their surroundings through self-guided tours.
Russell called for broader public outreach to ensure more residents are aware of and can participate in the historic preservation process. She suggested that expanding the announcement citywide could help gather more input from residents, enriching the survey with diverse perspectives and local knowledge.
She urged avoiding the past issue of surveys having gaps, or appearing like “Swiss cheese,” by ensuring this survey is comprehensive and inclusive. She expressed hope that more residents would contribute to creating a robust and holistic historic preservation document for West Hollywood.
