ATTACHMENT E
BUNGALOW HEAVEN CONSERVATION PLAN
AMENDMENT NARRATIVE
Overview
Three changes are proposed for the Bungalow Heaven Conservation Plan:
I. Extending the “period of significance” to its logical stopping point in 1956. The period of significance is presently indirectly defined as ending in 1939, which leaves out a major portion of the Minimal Traditional and Ranch style homes.
II. Making pro forma and terminology changes to recognize the 2004 expansion of the district and the 2021 revision of the Pasadena Historic Preservation Ordinance, including terminology updates.
III. Appending an addendum providing a baseline list of the contributing resources within the landmark district. All landmark districts created in recent years are required to have such a list to assist in administration.
I. Change to Period of Significance
Background: Neighborhood Development and Styles
The construction of houses of Bungalow Heaven is summarized in the overall age profile graph attached as Figure 1. This reveals that the continuous development of the neighborhood ended by about 1956, with sporadic building occurring from then to the present.
Figure 2 narrows the view to the 1885-1956 development period. It can be seen that Bungalow Heaven developed in four major waves or phases that each were dominated by a major architectural style or stylistic group. Pre-Development Era (1885-1903) – scattered development in the Victorian and Transitional styles. The neighborhood remained essentially rural.
First Wave (1904-1918) – a major surge in building that coincided with the popularity of the classic Craftsman style. This phase peaked in 1912 and was effectively halted by World War I. Second Wave (1919-1929) – the boom of the 1920s and its Period Revival styles, peaking 1923-1924. The early portion of this wave also included the postwar Late Craftsman style, a simplified and less robust version of Craftsman. This wave ended with the start of the Great Depression, which also saw the end of the dominance of Period Revival styles in the neighborhood. Third Wave (1930-1956) – a final wave that was more spread out than the previous two phases. This wave coincided with the rise and popularity of the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles. Despite the long span and the interruption of World War II, the styles and types being built form a cohesive architectural set. These houses continued the tradition of unpretentious middle-class houses as established in the earlier waves.
It can be seen that the historic housing stock of Bungalow Heaven developed between 1885 and 1956 in a series of building waves. Given the chronological continuity and architectural cohesiveness of the development, the logical Period of Significance for the district is 1885-1956.
Currently Recognized Period of Significance
Buildings less than 50 years old were generally not yet considered historic when the Bungalow Heaven Landmark District was created in 1989-1990. In addition, the concept of an official POS was not considered in the authorizing documents. The introduction section of the Conservation Plan merely made reference to homes built ”through the 1930s.”
It was assumed by many in the neighborhood that as buildings aged beyond 50 years, they would be automatically considered historic. This rolling 50-year threshold was even written into the Conservation Plan sections on demolitions and parking requirement waivers. However, evolution of local historic preservation regulations eventually led to a requirement that each district must have a fixed time span for its POS, in line with the practices of the National Register and California Register. With no specific POS on record for Bungalow Heaven, the city used the introduction paragraph of the Conservation Plan as a “de facto” POS ending in 1939.
As shown in Figure 2, the current POS illogically splits the Third Wave and its styles. The 40% or so of the Third Wave houses built before 1939 are protected, while stylistically matching ones from 1940 and onward are unprotected.
Proposed Period of Significance and Resulting District Composition It is proposed to revise the Bungalow Heaven Conservation Plan to specify an official Period of Significance of 1885 to 1956, thus aligning the POS with the logical span discussed above. This proposal does not affect the boundaries or number of houses within the district. It simply extends the POS and thus opens the door to protection for the final circa 60% of the Third Wave of building. Table 1 summarizes the statistics for the current and proposed conditions.
Item Under Current POS Proposed Change Under New POS
Buildings* in district 1175 0 added 1175
Buildings* within POS 1029 (87.6% of LD) 88 added (7.5% of LD) 1117 (95.1% of LD) Contributing buildings* in district 848 (72.2%) 67 added (5.7%) 915 (77.9%) Contributing buildings* as % of POS 82.4% 76.1% 81.9%
* Residences and business/institutional buildings
As shown, over ¾ of the additional buildings within the revised POS would be contributors, so there is no significant degradation of overall district quality. And as a result of the proposed change, 95% of the district’s buildings would fall within the POS.
Summary of POS Change
The proposed change will align the official POS with the historic time span of development and styles. The illogical exclusion of the later portion of the Minimal Traditional and Ranch era will be eliminated, assuring continued neighborhood integrity.
II. Pro Forma Changes to Reflect Present Status and Terminology The body of the plan needs to be modified to be consistent with (1) the addition of Holliston Avenue to the district in 2004, and (2) the evolution of the city’s historic preservation ordinance (especially the setting of uniform provisions for appeal of decisions across all districts). Several terminology updates are inserted for clarity or to conform with current terminology. These pro forma changes will not have a material effect on the operation of the Conservation Plan.
III. Addendum to the Conservation Plan: Master List of Resources Background
When the district was created in 1989-1990, the present requirement for a master list of contributing and non- contributing resources was not in place. However, since about 2002, all new landmark districts have been required to have such a list.
The lack of a Master List for Bungalow Heaven has meant that every individual review requires an assessment of status by the involved staff. The changes to staffing over time create the potential for inconsistent evaluations.
Every review held the potential for a surprise to the involved parties and the public.
Process
The Bungalow Heaven Neighborhood Association (BHNA) established a committee with the task of creating a master list. The four committee members were all experienced in historic preservation matters, and all had been on the Historic Preservation Commission as either full members or neighborhood representatives. This committee held weekly meetings of about four hours for about 15 months to review the information on each residential and commercial/institutional building in the landmark district.
The information reviewed and considered included the following as needed:
Standards such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for historic preservation and the City of Pasadena’s design guidelines
Existing historic surveys by the City of Pasadena (1987, 1989), by BHNA (1995-98), and by the city for the portion of the district that is within the National Register Historic District (2007-2008) Public tax records, including Building Description Blanks held by the city, taxes rolls in the city archives (up to 1974), and current public information from the Los Angeles County Assessor City public building permit records and records of reviews of proposed resource alterations Sanborn fire insurance maps (1910, 1931, 1950)
Historic images in archives such as the Pasadena Museum of History, the Huntington Library, and the California State Library
Archived research information in the Hale Building basement (newspaper cards, architect files, etc.) Google Maps aerial views and street views (including all available dates) General Internet searches / results
In-person viewing of the resource from the public right-of-way The resulting Master List was reviewed by city Design and Historic Preservation staff to assure agreement between BHNA and the city regarding the appropriateness of the ratings and descriptions.
The proposed list assumes the proposed Period of Significance (1885-1956).
Administration
The Master List may require revisions from time to time because of restorations, fires, new construction, or other changes. Such changes will be processed and decided by city staff (as they are now), subject to appeal or call for review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Provisions are included in the Conservation Plan and in the body of the addendum to allow these changes without requiring revisions to the Conservation Plan.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Buildings Constructed
Age Profile of Bungalow Heaven Landmark District (Street-Fronting Buildings Only) Primary
Development Period
1885-1956
Gap due to
World War II1883 house is not a
contributor and was
moved here in 1907
Sporadic Infill Construction
1957-present
Figure 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
Buildings Constructed
Age Profile of Bungalow Heaven Landmark District (Street-Fronting Buildings Only) Logical Period of Significance 1885-1956
Gap due to
World War II
Initially Assumed Period of Significance
1885-1939
Third Wave (Minimal
Traditional & Ranch)
1883 house is not a
contributor and was
moved here in 1907
Pre-Development Era
(Victorian & Transitional)
First Wave
(mostly Craftsman)
Second Wave
(Revivals)
Figure 2