Re “Culver City Ice Arena Is Being Called Names Again”
[Editor’s Note: In conjunction with today’s announcement that the City Council will consider a formal recommendation at its Monday, July 28, meeting to designate the historic Culver City Ice Arena a Cultural Resource, here is the background from City Hall as to how this came about.]
In 1990, the Culver City Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives of community organizations and at-large members, was tasked with making recommendations regarding criteria for designating buildings of historic significance and ranking structures based on these criteria.
Currently, Culver City’s register of Cultural Resources includes 120 individual structures and three historic districts.
The Historic Preservation Program makes provisions for individual nominations for Cultural Resource designation under Section 15.05.015. A structure or district may be nominated by a resident of Culver City, the property owner, the Cultural Affairs Commission, or the City Council.
Last Jan. 31, a nomination was submitted to the city by Kevin A. Healy, a resident of Culver City, for the Culver City Ice Arena, 4545 Sepulveda Blvd., as “a monument to 1960s architecture …. [and] a symbol of community spirit.”
Discussion
According to the Culver City Municipal Code, following the submission of a nomination for designation, the Community Development Director shall prepare an evaluation of the proposed designation and make a recommendation to the Cultural Affairs Commission as to
the appropriateness and qualifications of the application for consideration by the
Commission. The City retained Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (www.argsf.com) to prepare the evaluation for the proposed designation. A full report was prepared, entitled “Culver City Ice Arena Historic Resource Evaluation.”
Based on the contents of the Report, the Community Development Director has found that the Ice Arena is appropriate and qualified to be considered by the Commission for designation as a “Significant” structure.
Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director needed to make his
recommendation within 45 working days of submittal of a nomination, by April 11. The Cultural Affairs Commission’s regular meeting was April 8, date of the city's general municipal election, which meant the Council Chambers would not be available. Due to the level of public interest in the Ice Arena, the Commission held a special meeting on April 22.
To be considered for designation, the structure must meet one of the following threshold criteria:
1. The structure(s) is at least 50 years old and the exterior of the structure is accessible or visible to the public, or
2. The structure or district has special importance to the city. The Ice Arena meets the threshold requirement based on the first criterion alone.
Constructed in 1962, the structure is 52 years old and is visible to the public.
After establishing at least one threshold criteria, a structure shall be reviewed for compliance with one or more assessment criteria, as defined by Section 15.05.10 of the Municipal Code:
1. Is the structure(s) of architectural significance?
2. Is the structure(s) of historical or cultural significance?
3. Do the structures in the district collectively meet 1 or 2?
[The third criterion does not apply to the Ice Arena.]
The Historic Resource Evaluation Report is a summary of Architectural Resource Group’s analysis and findings, including a recommendation for designation as a Cultural Resource based on the categories included in Resolution No. 91-R015. The authors of the report 1) researched and referred to published and online sources, documents included in city files, documents from the ice rink operator’s files, and ephemera, and
2) conducted personal interviews for purposes of compiling as much information about the Ice Arena within the prescribed time-frame. Architectural Resources Group staff also conducted a site visit to the Ice Arena on Jan. 31 while it was still in operation.
Architectural Resources Group’s report provides a detailed description of the Ice Arena site and the building’s exterior and interior at the end of January. To make findings according to the city’s Historic Preservation Program ranking system, it was necessary to consider the individuals associated with the design and construction of the structure,the structure’s architectural style and construction materials, the association with prominent persons, whether there was an association with historical patterns or significant events, other examples of similar types and styles of structures, and whether the Ice Arena is well preserved or has been significantly altered.
Further, a larger context for the site was established by discussing the growth of ice skating in the region, indoor recreation and suburban development, and the site’s association with figure skating and ice hockey.
In evaluating the Ice Arena pursuant to the criteria included in Culver City’s Historic
Preservation Program, Architectural Resources Group’s report concludes that the structure is Significant for the following reasons:
1. Its association with post-war indoor recreation that catered to youth of the baby boom generation in a developing suburban context and,
2. Its association with ice skating, both for recreation and as organized and professional sports in the form of figure skating and hockey, providing a place to support and cultivate local interest and talent, including individuals who became national and Olympic champions.
In addition, the Ice Arena is one of five extant rinks more than 50 years old in Los Angeles County and only one of three that has not been altered on the exterior and still reflects its historical appearance.
Classification ranking as a Cultural Resource is based on the total number of points assigned in each category. “Landmark” structures have a total point range of 41-60. “Significant” structures have a total point range of 21-40. “Recognized” structures a total point range of 5-20.
The total number of points assigned the Culver City Ice Arena is 25, making it eligible for designation as a Culver City Cultural Resource at the “Significant” level.
When a structure is recommended for designation, the owner of record as well as the applicant shall be notified in writing at least 10 calendar days prior to the Cultural Affairs Commission’s or City Council’s review. Non-residential structures may be designated “Significant” without owner consent. Once the property is designated, a plaque, provided by the city, shall be displayed at the site which indicates that the structure is designated “Significant.”
Even though the Culver City Ice Arena’s ranking places it within the point total for “Significant” designation, Cultural Affairs has the option of recommending designation at the “Recognized” level or that the nomination for designation be disapproved.
Alterations or Demolition of “Landmark” and “Significant” Designated Structures
Structures designated at the “Landmark” and “Significant” levels require a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to demolishing, removing or making any alterations affecting the exterior appearance. Depending on whether the proposed alterations are major or minor, a Certificate of Appropriateness is reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission.
Even if the Community Development Director or Planning Commission determine that the proposed alteration, demolition or removal would have an adverse impact on a structure designated as “Significant,” a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be issued if the applicant observes a six-month waiting period during which he/she makes a good faith effort to identify alternatives accomplishing the applicant’s goals while preserving the structure but is unable to do so. In contrast, a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be denied for a structure designated as a “Landmark” if the applicant is unable to identify alternatives to accomplishing their goals during the six-month waiting period or if the applicant has not made a good faith effort to identify alternatives during the waiting period.
An owner who has been denied a Certificate of Appropriateness can subsequently apply for a Certificate of Exemption. Findings made by the Planning Commission in support of the request include assessment of the feasibility of converting the structure to a new use, rehabilitation or relocation of the structure, feasibility of all means involving city-sponsored incentives, or that the disapproval of the Certificate of Exemption would damage the owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefit conferred on the community.
Except for the instance outlined above that includes a maximum six-month waiting period, the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is conditioned upon all exterior alterations conforming with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which include the preservation of character-defining features. In the case of the Culver City Ice Arena, character-defining features include the entrance and signage, as well as its overall utilitarian design.The Standards state that “a property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.” While many historically designated properties change use over time to remain economically viable, in a case such as the Ice Arena it is important to note that the significance rests primarily with patterns of events rather than the association with a well-known architect or because the structure is a notable example of any particular style or building type. Therefore, if continued use as an ice rink is not feasible, then related recreational uses should be explored as an alternative before considering non-recreational activities.
The city’s Historic Preservation Program also includes provisions for economic hardship through a Certificate of Exemption for “Landmark” and “Significant” designated structures. In preparing an application for a Certificate of Exemption, the property owner has the burden of proof to present evidence supporting the exemption request. Findings made by the Planning Commission in support of the request include assessment of the feasibility of converting the structure to a new use, rehabilitation or relocation of the structure, feasibility of all means involving city-sponsored incentives, or that the disapproval of the Certificate of Exemption would damage the owner unreasonably in comparison to the benefit conferred on the community. CEQA and The California Register
If the property owner of the Ice Arena site submits an application for development of the property which requires a discretionary action or permit, it is likely that the proposed project would need to be reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that state and local public agencies identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. Historical resources are considered part of the environment and a project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
With regard to historical resources, generally if a project conforms with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, it can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Historical resources as defined by CEQA include properties that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory to be eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources (California Register). The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private group, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate
which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”
Based on the Architectural Resources Group’s report, there is a preponderance of evidence that the Ice Arena appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage). Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, the Ice Arena would be considered a historical resource.
Note: In Culver City, demolition is a ministerial action and does not trigger CEQA review. In the event that the Ice Arena is not designated a Culver City Cultural Resource at the “Significant” level, if a demolition permit were submitted to the city for the Ice Arena, the permit would be granted (the “Recognized” category does not protect the Ice Arena from demolition under the Municipal Code).
End of the Road
Final designation as a Culver City Cultural Resource will be made by the City Council on Monday, July 28.
