University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

(USC Thesis Other)

Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Collaborative Conservation:
How the Heritage and Environmental Conservation Movements Can and Should Unite for
Progress

By

Katelyn M. Rispoli

_____________________________________________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Architecture
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Heritage Conservation

May 2015

1

Acknowledgements

Writing this thesis has been a year-long effort involving several experts in their fields
who were generous with their time. It would be impossible to accurately thank those who helped
me without also mentioning that when I chose a topic for this thesis, I also made the decision to
found a nonprofit organization, We Are the Next. All of my time, research, and meetings have
resulted in a work that holds a much higher personal value in that it supports the mission and
efforts of the organization – truly my heart and soul in an entity governed by the Internal
Revenue Service. The last year has been extremely challenging, but abundantly more rewarding
because of the determination required to reach this milestone. For their parts played along the
way, both large and small, I would like to extend a sincere, ‘thank you.’
I would like to thank Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence and Elizabeth Lambe of the Los
Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust for their perspectives as environmental professionals working to
preserve natural resources. Flora Chou, LEED AP, of Page & Turnbull shared her valuable
experience with the Los Angeles Conservancy in Southeast Long Beach and Jon Glasgow, AIA,
of Interstices, a Long Beach Preservation Architect shared his insight and experiences in the
same region. Adam Emerick in Horry County, South Carolina inspired me with his talk at the
2014 National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in Savannah, Georgia, shifting the
focus of my thesis (one of several times), and then went on to sacrifice his time to provide me
with information about his projects, while Ellen Bruzelius of the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum
in New York provided me with an opportunity to learn from her collaboration.
Brian Ulaszewski, founder and Executive Director of City Fabrick, believes I can do
anything. When meeting with Brian just one of the many times I have dragged him from his
office over the last couple of years, I mentioned that I hoped to start a nonprofit organization. His
resounding support and belief in my capability was the last thing I needed to take the plunge, and
We Are the Next was founded just weeks after. Brian went on to provide an office space for the
organization and since then, he has met with me to provide his insight in both my work and my
2

research for this thesis as a Long Beach, placemaking, New Urbanist expert and I could not be
more grateful.
I would also like to sincerely thank my committee members – Jay Platt and Douglas
Carstens, for the generous donation of their time to my academic success. Jay has brought his
passion for the environment in historic preservation, and with it his expertise as a city planner.
Both of these characteristics have proved valuable to flushing out my half-baked ideas. Doug
Carstens was first involved as an interviewee, who was interviewed twice, and then three times.
Finally I asked him to put his name on this thesis, not only because he deserved it for how much
time he had committed but because Doug works intimately with CEQA through Chatten-Brown
and Carstens, LLP, the firm which represented Long Beach Heritage in their suit to save
Roosevelt Naval Base and worked with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust to mitigate the
redevelopment project for the Seaport Marina Hotel. Examining all of these things in intense
detail in research and writing have allowed for many of his experiences and much of his
expertise to come into play, and I am grateful for his agreement in sharing them.
Trudi Sandmeier has championed my outlandish ideas since she accepted me into this
graduate program two years ago. She respects my interest in environmental sustainability and has
spent hours exploring ways for me to incorporate it in my studies in heritage conservation. Trudi
has supported me in both my writing and my entrepreneurial spirit. When I came to her a year
ago and told her I wanted to start an organization, she provided valuable insight. Trudi has never
expressed doubt that I can take on the world – only advice on how to manage my time and tasks
in doing so. She has been a guiding light through this program and upon completion of this
degree in May her routine presence is what I will miss most.
Acknowledgements would not be complete without including my family, most
importantly my dad. My entire life he has demonstrated perseverance, and he has always had
outlandish dreams. He finished college while working nights full-time and supporting a family of
five. He works harder when facing obstacles, and I cannot once remember him taking ‘no’ for an
answer. My dad fostered a love of history in me and for years was encouraging when I was
dedicated to becoming an archaeologist. He took me to bookstores on weekends to read
everything from fictional interpretations of the lives of historic persons to college-level
archaeology textbooks I could not understand at the age of eleven. Not only has my Dad never
3

taken ‘no’ for an answer in his own pursuits, he would never accept it for mine. Though we are
incredibly different in many ways, neither of us can argue that we both bear unbridled
determination. For his support, blind faith, and unmatched grit, I am grateful.
Finally, I would like to thank my second, future family for living with only a shadow of
me over the last year and expressing nothing but support. This family consists of my fiancé
Kelvin, our dog Walter, and our cat Miley. I am so grateful for Kelvin, who is my exact opposite.
Quiet, reserved, and barely interested in architecture, he offers upon every preservation event to
join and is relieved when I do not make him accompany me. Kelvin has never expressed doubt
that I could start a successful organization, and knew that doing it while finishing graduate
school would only make me do so better. He has met me at my office for lunch, and scheduled
hikes for us with Walter on weekends so I could stop to gain some sanity. When there have been
deadlines, he has silently accepted all responsibility to care for our home and our four-legged
family members. Everything I have done over the last year would not have been possible without
his consistent encouragement through e-mails, notes, and phone calls. Kelvin has put his own
ambitions on hold while I have finished this program and gotten the organization in business, and
I only hope I can provide at least a portion of the support he has shown me in achieving his
dreams when the time comes.

4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Introduction 8
Chapter One: Why California? Environmental Context and History of Conservation Policy 10
Chapter Two: Shared Interests between Heritage and Environmental Conservation 21
Transportation 23
Construction/Development 24
Aesthetic and Cultural Value 28
Civic Engagement 28
Residential Quality of Life Expectations 29
Economics 30
Unifying these Factors through Green Rating Systems 31
Chapter Three: Long Beach, California – Collaborative Conservation (in)action 34
Roosevelt Naval Base 34
Seaport Marina Hotel 46
Chapter Four: Uniting for Progress 64
Collaborative Conservation – Federal Level 64
Collaborative Conservation – State Level 66
Collaborative Conservation – Local Level 68
Challenges Faced by Collaborative Conservation 68
How These Policies are Implemented 69
Quality of Life in Collaborative Conservation 71
Collaborative Conservation without Policy 74
Conclusion 81
Bibliography 84

5

List of Figures

1.1 Long Beach Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan 19
2.1 Southern California Edison Headquarters in Long Beach 26
3.1 Grounds at Roosevelt Naval Base looking west to San Pedro 35
3.2 Map of Roosevelt Naval Base 36
3.3 Roosevelt Naval Base Administration Building 39
3.4 Tree relocation at the site of the Black Crowned Night-Heron Colony 44
3.5.1 Roosevelt Naval Base Guard Station 45
3.5.2 Last Remaining Building from the Roosevelt Naval Base 45
3.6 Roy Sealey working in his office 48
3.7 Aerial view of the City Center Motel 49
3.8 Aerial view of the Inn of Long Beach 49
3.9 Aerial view of the Seaport Marina Hotel 49
3.10 Seaport Marina Hotel from the Long Beach Marina 50
3.11 The Seaport Marina Hotel, East Wing 51
3.12 Googie-Style Café, part of the original Seaport Marina Plan 52
3.13 Close up of Googie architectural elements at the Seaport Marina Hotel 53
3.14 Rendering of 2006 proposal to replace the Seaport Marina Hotel 54
3.15 Rendering of 2
nd
+ PCH Development as proposed in 2009 56
3.16 Rendering of Proposed 2
nd
+ PCH Development (second submittal) 57
3.17 2
nd
+ PCH proponents at Long Beach City Council meeting 58
3.18 Seaport Marina Hotel landscape improvements in progress 61
3.19 Rendering of Belmont Yards proposal by USC students 62
4.2 Live oak trees dedicated through the Patriot Tree Project 75
4.3 Tree removal volunteers at the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum 78
4.4 Restored garden of the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum 79

6

Abstract

Collaborative conservation is the symbiotic partnership between environmental
conservation and heritage conservation, combining the most successful characteristics of both to
improve human quality of life. This thesis evaluates the relationship between the two practices in
California since the 1960s and identifies their common interests as disciplines. The demolished
Roosevelt Naval Base and temporarily rescued Seaport Marina Hotel in Long Beach serve as
case studies to examine the crossovers and opportunities in this approach. Discovering the
relationship between these interests, understanding pitfalls of current legislation, and developing
a course of action to pursue this new approach to policymaking will result in more effective tools
for advocates of both environmental and heritage conservation.

7

Introduction

In America, humanity’s physical impact on the natural environment became noteworthy
in the 1600s, but advanced exponentially two centuries later with industrialization.
1
Propelled by
John Muir, the movement initially focused on preservation – the protection of natural resources
from all human interference.
2
With time, the environmental movement focused less on ecology
and became more inclusive towards the human experience.
3
Since the 1960s, the environmental
movement has aimed to improve environmental health put in jeopardy by human activity. Today
it emphasizes the cultural value in natural resources and the impact of human intervention.
Conservation – the protection of resources while allowing for their sustainable use and
appreciation – has grown in application.
4
Conservation allowed the environmental movement to
expand its cultural connections and relate to broader audiences. As a result, environmental
conservation policy has experienced great success. Advocates for environmental policy propose
and pass far more pieces of legislation than activists in the field of heritage conservation.
In this thesis, the term heritage conservation is used to describe the field of historic
preservation as implemented in Southern California.
5
In other regions, preservationists focus on
building materials such as windows, doors, and siding to emphasize architectural history.
Heritage conservation reaches more broadly, emphasizing the role the designed landscape plays
in creating a sense of place, community, and culture in a particular region. As a more social
interpretation of historic preservation, heritage conservation is more relevant to the preservation
community in Southern California. In this region, buildings are often young, and therefore they
are more appreciated for their cultural relevance as opposed to their longevity.
The heritage conservation approach creates an ideal climate for collaboration between
these advocates and those of environmental conservation. Rather than only preserving
architectural history, heritage conservation opens up the built environment for social
1
Benjamin Kline, First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement, 4
th
ed. (Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011), 22-23.
2
Ibid., 66-67.
3
Ibid., 87-91.
4
Ibid., 67.
5
Though Southern California has established its own regional interpretation of historic preservation through
heritage conservation, the region is not the first to take this approach in the field.
8

interpretation, retaining its significance while adapting it for continued use. With the progression
of the environmental movement to a more cultural perspective, these two fields have naturally
begun to align in the Los Angeles region.
Environmental and heritage advocates have much in common. Both groups prioritize
quality of life through the creation of a healthier, more enjoyable human environment which
provides opportunities to appreciate history, culture, and natural beauty. With their shared
investment, the fields each comprise one half of the greater concept of conservation. Heritage
conservation focuses on the sustainable use of historic and cultural resources while
environmental conservation applies to the same perspective to natural resources. Understanding
the natural complement between the two fields encourages successful collaboration.
By embracing and expanding the scope of collaborative conservation, both fields stand to
benefit. Environmental groups can gain additional tools to protect natural resources through
emphasizing their historical and cultural values while historic preservationists better protect
cultural resources by emphasizing their sustainability. Collaborative conservation unifies the
strongest characteristics of both environmental and historic preservation policies, while
prioritizing their shared interests.
Collaboration between historic preservation and environmental advocates to draft
collaborative conservation policy will effectively create a broad network to protect the nation’s
wide array of cultural and natural resources. With a recognized shared interest between the two
fields, legislators who already identify environmental conservation as a priority can expand their
focus to include historic preservation. By emphasizing the sustainability inherent to heritage
conservation, both environmental and heritage conservation stand to gain.

9

Chapter 1
Why California? Environmental Context and History of Conservation Policy
In Southern California today, environmental awareness is of primary concern. Proactive
residents throughout the region advocate for responsible environmental policies, and are
supportive of educational initiatives that encourage environmental conservation.
6
The
concentration of environmental activism in Southern California originated in the late 1960s with
the growth of the environmental movement. The largest continental oil spill in United States
history occurred in Santa Barbara in 1969, and on its heels the University of California, Santa
Barbara became the epicenter of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
7
This event was
recognized nationwide and followed by the energy crisis during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
8

The 1970s was subsequently heralded as the “Green Decade,” and the growth in public
awareness changed the way Americans perceived their natural environment.
9

After the Green Decade, historic preservationists began to recognize the overlapping
interests between their own work and the work of environmentalists.
10
Environmental activists
argued for the mitigation of construction activities, recognizing that building demolition resulted
in heavy environmental impacts. Historic preservation supported this concern through their
interest in retaining historic and existing buildings.
11

6
Internal Revenue Service, IRS Form 990, Heal the Bay, Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013,
http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/95-4031055/heal-bay.aspx (accessed February 9, 2015). Heal the Bay, one
major environmental organization working in California, serves the region surrounding the Santa Monica Bay. The
organization participates in advocacy initiatives and education programming. Continued wide spread support for this
organization and its peers across the Los Angeles region embodies the attitude of residents towards environmental
sustainability. Heal the Bay raises close to $3 Million annually, and in 2013 reported having 20,000 volunteers.
7
Kline, First Along the River, 88-90.
8
Jacqueline Vaughn, Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions, 6
th
ed. (Australia: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning, 2011), 167.
9
Kline, First Along the River, 92. Several benchmark policies in environmental advocacy were put into place during
the 1970s, including the Coastal Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and others. See
Table 4.1 for additional information.
10
Wayne Curtis, “A Cautionary Tale: Amid Our Green-Building Boom, Why Neglecting the Old in Favor of the
New Just Might Cost us Dearly,” Preservation (January/February2008).
http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2008/january-february/cautionary-tale.html. After 1976, the concept of
embodied energy was popularized, recognizing the investment of nonrenewable resources that had been placed in
existing infrastructure and building construction. In an effort to reinforce this embodied energy and build an
environmental association through historic preservation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation released their
report, New Energy from Old Buildings, discussing the topic in 1981.
11
National Trust for Historic Preservation et al., Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring How the Character of Buildings
and Blocks Influences Urban Vitality (May 2014), 15.
10

This shared interest has been recognized independently through the actions of the two
professional fields. Though the concept of sustainability is inherent in heritage conservation,
preservation advocates did not immediately create partnerships with environmental proponents
for more effective policies to embrace the strong tie between the built environment and
environmental health at the local, state, or federal level. Rather, the two fields moved forward
independently in their efforts to create effective legislation in defense of their interests.
As environmental advocacy came to fruition, the historic preservation community thrived
along the west coast. With a storied past in eastern cities, conservation efforts had made their
way to Southern California. This period for historic preservation in Southern California can be
largely represented with local milestones in the practice, including the adoption of the City of
Los Angeles’ Historic Cultural Monument Program in 1962 and the creation of the Los Angeles
Conservancy in 1978.
12
The Los Angeles Conservancy, effectively organized over the fight to
save the Los Angeles Central Library in Downtown from demolition, is today the largest
membership-based preservation organization in the country.
13

Preservation advocates achieved significant success on a larger scale in the passing of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), now nearing its 50
th
anniversary. The NHPA,
passed in 1966, allowed significant progress in the national preservation movement. “It is
impossible to overstate the boost to the American Preservation movement provided by the 1966
act.”
14
The NHPA allowed for the creation of the National Register program, an inventory of
properties reflecting national heritage, a program of both grants and financial tax incentives to
encourage preservation, and the creation of an independent federal committee to coordinate the
actions of federal agencies in regards to historic preservation.
15
Regardless, “one might argue
that little new has been added to that original vision and that progress since then has largely
consisted of fleshing out the details…and adapting it to the evolving circumstances of American
12
“Historic Cultural Monument (HCM) List,” City of Los Angeles, last modified July 31, 2014, accessed August
30, 2014, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/HCMDatabase102412.pdf. ; “About,” The Los Angeles Conservancy,
accessed December 30, 2014, https://www.laconservancy.org/about. The City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural
Monument program came to fruition with the designation of the Leonis Adobe as ‘HCM’ No. 1 in 1962.
13
“About,” Los Angeles Conservancy, last modified 2013, accessed December 14, 2014,
https://www.laconservancy.org/about.
14
Robert E. Stipe, “Where Do We Go from Here?,” chap. 15 in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the
Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: the University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 487.
15
John M. Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” chap. 2 in A Richer Heritage, ed. Robert E. Stipe, 35.
11

society.”
16
On a national scale, resources such as the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (1976)
and the Mills Act (1972) were created during the Green Decade which also resulted in numerous
policy initiatives to protect the environment and natural resources. Since then, environmental
policies have continued to grow in number while there has been little growth or significant
change in the legislative tools provided to historic preservationists.
17

In Southern California, preservation advocates turn to state policies such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in their efforts to protect historic resources. CEQA was put
into place in the Green decade to protect the state’s natural resources at a time of peak concern,
and was updated in the 1990s to include language regarding historic resources.
18
CEQA is
ultimately an environmental policy. Although the use of this legislation by the historic
preservation community is practical, that use has created challenges for the field.
First, the use of CEQA has allowed the preservation community to rely on a policy not
written with the intent of protecting historic built resources. The language added to address
preservation in the 1990s is not the motive behind its creation. This puts professionals at an
immediate disadvantage when attempting to fight for endangered places, as they are forced to
pursue CEQA processes which may or may not enable the preservation of that place within a
narrow set of circumstances. Heritage advocates have experienced just enough success through
their independent use of environmental policies like CEQA to consider them a viable method of
protection. Because advocates have experienced this limited success, they have not been forced
to take active steps to write new policies more suitable.
Second, by advantageously utilizing environmental legislation for preservation, historic
preservation advocates have created a divide between themselves and environmentalists. There is
a perception of policy abuse within circles of the environmental community, reducing potential
partnerships which could result in successes for both respective fields. This divide is
counterintuitive and damaging to the missions of preservationists attempting to conserve
resources.
19

16
Ibid.
17
Kline, First Along the River, 152-159.
18
California Public Resources Code § 21083.2-21084.1 (1998).

12

The moderate success experienced through use of policies like CEQA has proved
sufficient, but without the implementation of new benchmark policies in heritage conservation,
incentives to retain and treat historic resources have continued to be largely in the form of tax
credits available to those who rehabilitate existing buildings.
20
These heritage-minded tax rebate
programs can be very limited. For a developer or property owner with intent to demolish a
historic building, there is no effort to rehabilitate it, and therefore no potential for gained capital
in doing so. In the event of planned demolition these rebate programs provide little to no
incentive to conserve cultural resources. Also, tax credits are often catered towards designated
historic landmarks and do not provide incentive or means of protection for cultural resources or
works of architecture that have not yet gained historic designation.
The resulting reliance on environmental laws like CEQA poses a challenge.
21
These
policies are reviewed by legislative bodies who view them as distinctly environmental
regulation. Rather than rely on these bodies to continue reviewing existing policy, new joint-
policies should be created which consider environmental and culturally-significant historic
resources from the start. The creation of these policies at the state level can provide the greatest
opportunity for implementation.
“Regardless of whether new federal preservation incentives become available, the
strongest financial benefits and legal protections for historic resources will be at state and local
levels.”
22
Local pieces of legislation are more accessible by regional activists and professionals.
19
Elizabeth Lambe (Executive Director, Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust), interview by Katelyn Rispoli, June 25,
2014. Though preservationists have used CEQA to advance their own interests, doing so has saved historic
resources from demolition. CEQA contains language regarding historic resources because there is value placed in
using it for this purpose, and the conservation of significant cultural resources as a result should not be discredited.
20
Kathryn Welch Howe, “Private Sector Involvement in Historic Preservation,” chap. 9 in A Richer Heritage, ed.
Robert E. Stipe, 289. ; “Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties,” National Park Services, accessed March
11, 2015, http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm. The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program was founded
in 1981. Through this program, the federal government provides tax credits of either ten or twenty percent to
property owners who carry out eligible work on their historic buildings. This program incentivizes property owners
to maintain these sites, and in some cases can provide an incentive to perform adaptive reuse or restoration projects.
Though this tax credit program is valuable to the preservation community, it may not incentivize property owners to
reconsider demolition. Potential revenue from the program may not be sizable enough to offset the potential revenue
from demolition and new construction.
21
The states of New York (State Environmental Quality Review Act), Massachusetts (Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act), and Washington (State Environmental Policy Act) have similar policies in place.
22
Carol Shull, “The Future of the National Register,” National Trust for Historic Preservation ForumJournal 27,
no. 1 (Fall 2012): 10.
13

Large-scale, unilateral policies often do not allow local governments and regulatory agencies to
provide flexible interpretations or offer regional incentives.
23

The intent in these local policies lies largely in the groups responsible for their creation.
Employing the strength of local legislation in a collaborative format will promote shared interest
in conservation. These policies, with a focus on prosperity in partnership, can be effectively
titled collaborative conservation policies. Employment of collaborative conservation in
California can further the missions of both environmental and heritage proponents through the
use of more successful language in regulation. Long Beach, a city bordering Los Angeles and
Orange Counties, possesses substantial wetlands and historic resources along its waterfront.
These resources are protected by a network of local advocates based in the area. With numerous
environmental and preservation proponents protecting a broad array of resources, the city sets a
compelling stage to observe the challenges faced in the use of existing conservation policy.
In addition to CEQA, there are three primary policies which currently aid activists
fighting for natural and historic resources in Long Beach. These policies are:
• The Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program – California Coastal Commission, 1972
• SEADIP (South East Area Development and Improvement Plan) – City of Long Beach,
1977
• The Certified Local Government Program – The National Park Service, 1980
The Coastal Act, the Local Coastal Program, and SEADIP were created with
environmental interest, but have been applied by historic preservation advocates. The Certified
Local Government Program is the only one of these policies developed for use in preservation.
Each of these policies is intended for one element of conservation but has an effect on the
success of the other. By regulating and deterring building demolition and extensive new
construction, these policies have created safer environments for historic resources and the
ecological systems that surround them.
The Coastal Act was first proposed in 1968 by Ellen Stern Harris of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Once implemented in 1972, the act effectively created
23
Daniel Mazmezian and Michael E. Kraft, “The Three Epochs of the Environmental Movement,” in Mazmezian
and Kraft, Toward Sustainable Communities (MIT Press: 2009), 4.
14

the California Coastal Commission.
24
In cities that do not have oversight committees which
review developmental conditions along the coast, the California Coastal Commission acts as a
ruling body.
25
The California Coast is defined as the near-1.5 million acres of land along the
shoreline of the state spanning roughly 287 miles from Oregon to Mexico. The coastal zone
ranges from a few blocks in from the oceanfront in some communities to several miles in
others.
26

The Coastal Act was the first widespread piece of legislation in California which
restricted development upon the entire state shoreline.
27
“The legacy of the…Act…is not easy to
assess. It is as much measured in the development you don’t see as the quality of development
you do see. It is as much measured in the views and public access you enjoy as in the citizen
participation that made the views and access possible.”
28
The passing of the Coastal Act stood as
a broad declaration that the affected environmental resources are significant, and that the
California state legislature retains responsibility to enact policies to provide these resources with
protection. The act includes language regarding cultural heritage by ensuring permitted
development is “…visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where
feasible, [developments] restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New
development in highly scenic areas…shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.”
29
This
language has been used by preservationists to protect historical resources in coastal zones
through their ‘esthetic’ value.
30

As part of its regulatory power, the California Coastal Commission created the Local
Coastal Program (LCP) system to monitor and control activity throughout the state’s coastline. It
is the responsibility of a city to write its own Local Coastal Program and submit the piece of
24
California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it Does (San Francisco: California Coastal Commission,
2003): 2.
25
Eric Zahn (Co-Founder and Principal, Tidal Influence), interview by Katelyn Rispoli, June 17, 2014.
26
California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it Does, 2-3.
27
Douglas Carstens (Partner Attorney, Chatten-Brown and Carstens, LLP), interview by Katelyn Rispoli, June 21
2014. Douglas Carstens was a member of the Long Beach Naval Complex Restoration Advisory Board, which
oversaw the implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure Act Process for Roosevelt Naval Base and the
neighboring Long Beach Naval Shipyard. During the fight to save the Naval base from demolition in the 1990s,
Carstens worked for the firm representing Long Beach Heritage in the suit.
28
“Commentary of ’89 Judy B. Rosener on the Coastal Act,” Los Angeles Times, December 31, 1989, accessed
August 28, 2014.
29
California Coastal Act § 30251 (Passed 1976).
30
Jim Howe, Ed McMahon, and Luther Propst, Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities,
(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997), 126.
15

legislation to the California Coastal Commission for approval so that it may be adopted. “Each
LCP includes a land use plan that prescribes land use classifications, types and densities of
allowable development, and goals and policies concerning development; and zoning ordinances
needed to implement the plan.”
31

After a city has adopted an LCP, only permits for work pertaining to tidelands,
submerged lands, and public trust lands require approval from the California Coastal
Commission.
32
The remainder of proposed projects along the coastline can be approved by the
city entity. The Coastal Commission regardless retains complete authority to override or revoke
permits distributed by a city with an LCP in place at any time if they disagree with the
decision.
33

Obtaining and maintaining a LCP designation is a benefit for participating city
governments. The LCP’s language on land use provides regulation regarding certain aspects of
development without the effort of hearings and other judiciary action, and this language gives
participating cities the ability to say they have put consideration into development along their
coastline. Both environmental and preservation advocates make use of the LCP in attempts to
regulate development near natural and other cultural resources in hopes of encouraging
consideration when potential dangers are posed by substantial projects.
The Local Coastal Programs are maintained by participating city entities and like any
piece of regulatory framework, the programs should be updated routinely. As of 2013, there were
128 Local Coastal Programs in effect in the state of California.
34
Unless a separate local
environmental policy is in place, the California Coastal Commission acts as a regulatory agency
for proposals within their jurisdiction. The following are standards set by the commission, used
to guide its permit and land use planning rulings:
35

A. Protect and expand public shoreline access and recreational opportunities
31
California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it Does, 3.
32
“Local Coastal Programs,” California Coastal Commission, accessed March 12, 2015,
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcps.html.
33
Ibid.
34
“Summary of LCP Program Activity in FY 2012-2013,” California Coastal Commission, November 25, 2013,
accessed September 1, 2014, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/LCPStatusSummFY1213.pdf.
35
California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it Does, 5.
16

B. Protect and restore sensitive habitats, including near shore waters, wetlands, riparian
habitat, and habitat for rare and endangered species
C. Protect farmlands, natural landforms, commercial fisheries, special communities, and
archeological resources
D. Protect scenic landscapes and views of the sea
E. Establish stable urban-rural boundaries and guide new development into areas with
adequate services
F. Provide for environmentally sound expansion of industrial ports and electric power plants
and for siting of coastal dependent industries
G. Protect against loss of life and property from coastal hazards.
These guidelines were written with the intent of providing protection to environmental
resources, ecological systems, and Native American and archaeological resources along the
California Coast. However, when carefully considering each of these standards, it can be noted
that several have an effect on or could be considered to have an effect on historic resources.
36

The Certified Local Government (CLG) program is a nationwide heritage conservation
program adopted at the city level. The program, managed by the National Park Service and
administered by each State Historic Preservation Office, was created by a 1980 amendment to
the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act.
37
The program has allowed for local governments
to obtain Certified Local Government status by participating in an enrollment and compliance
process. The program is critical for cities looking to protect their historic assets. Cities with CLG
status are able to designate landmarks which may only hold significance at the local level. These
cities are responsible for developing an oversight board and maintaining a survey and registry of
historic properties within their jurisdiction.
38
Ten percent of every state’s income from the
federal Historic Preservation Fund is made available to participating city governments each year
in the form of competitive grants. In addition, CLGs have a stronger historic preservation
presence, which provides residents with cultural assets, sustainability, and increased
36
Standards A, C, D, and G can relate to cultural historic resources. Please refer to Chapter 2: Shared Interests
between Heritage and Environmental Conservation for a more comprehensive analysis of the shared interests
between environmental and historic preservation advocates.
37
Shull, “The Future of the National Register,” 8.
38
“Become a Certified Local Government,” National Park Service, accessed August 31, 2014
http://www.nps.gov/clg/become-clg.html.
17

opportunities for civic engagement. There are roughly 2,000 CLGs in the United States,
including Long Beach.
39

The Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) is a piece of
environmental legislation written by the City of Long Beach in 1977.
40
The plan was designed to
keep development to a minimum in the area which surrounds the existing Los Cerritos Wetlands
in Long Beach.
41
Covering Long Beach’s Southeast corner ranging from the Alamitos Bay up to
the nearby Colorado Lagoon, SEADIP’s zoning regulation ensures development surrounding the
wetlands is kept to a minimum, and creates as little environmental impact as possible. SEADIP
limits any development to a maximum height of thirty-five feet, and ensures that no less than
thirty percent of the zoned area is maintained as usable open, public space.
42

SEADIP is intended solely for the protection of environmental resources, namely the Los
Cerritos Wetlands by maintaining the lack of large-scale development in the SEADIP territory.
This aspect of the policy has been used by advocates in efforts to prevent the demolition of
historic resources in the area. Most recently, advocates for historic preservation rallied to prevent
redevelopment of the Seaport Marina Hotel, a mid-century hotel located across the street from
the wetlands.
43
Despite this implementation, SEADIP does not contain specific language
regarding historic and cultural resources. It does determine the density allowed in its presiding
region, which proved a useful tool for advocates of the historic site.
39
“Certified Local Governments Program,” National Park Service, accessed August 31, 2014,
http://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/CLG_Review/Get_All_CLG.cfm. Though there are 2,000 participating Certified Local
Governments across the country, the number in Los Angeles County is negligible. Long Beach is one of only eleven
participating cities in the program out of eighty-eight eligible cities in the county.
40
Though the City of Long Beach participates in the California Coastal Commission’s Local Coastal Program, the
SEADIP territory is a zoning overlay in which the City of Long Beach is able to retain jurisdiction.
41
Ann Cantrell, “Monday’s Letters,” Long Beach Press Telegram, June 17, 2007, accessed September 2, 2014.
42
City of Long Beach Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan § A(4) (amended January 3, 2006)
(passed 1977).
43
For a full chronicle of the events which took place to save the Seaport Marina Hotel from demolition, refer to
Chapter 3: Long Beach, California – Collaborative Conservation (in)action, pages 34-63.
18

Figure 1.1. SEADIP Region (Shaded in Yellow). Source: City of Long Beach Southeast Area Development and
Improvement Plan.
SEADIP is an evolving piece of environmental policy. It has been amended a total of
seven times in its thirty-eight year history, and the policy is currently undergoing its first major
revision.
44
The revision process is carried out by selected participants who live in the SEADIP
territory, but the committee does not include advocates on behalf of historic preservation or
professionals in that field.
45

With the understanding that preservation and environmental groups have shared interest,
it is ideal for representatives from both fields to participate in policy revision and the drafting of
44
City of Long Beach Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan, see § “Ordinance History.”
45
“Advisory Committee Roster,” City of Long Beach, July 2014,
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4256. Those with proof of residency in the territory
were eligible to apply with the City of Long Beach to be on the committee. Committee members participate in the
SEADIP revision process by providing insight as to project components on the affected area. The committee
includes major real estate developers working in the Long Beach landscape, the property owner of the Seaport
Marina Hotel, representatives from local homeowner associations, the Executive Director of the Los Cerritos
Wetlands Land Trust, a representative from California State University, Long Beach, and other community
members. None of the members of the SEADIP Advisory Committee represent historic preservation or historic sites
in operation throughout the territory, despite the existence of designated historic resources and historic museums in
the affected location.
19

new collaborative conservation policies to ensure that statewide regulations relating to
environmental and cultural conservation embody the values of both practices. The history of the
environmental movement as it flourished in California created a mindset which today is
favorable towards shoreline, wetlands, and general nature conservation. The Southern California
region’s combination of population density, consistent development, and valuable environmental
resources creates an ideal climate for collaboration in policymaking. In achieving collaborative
conservation policy, both environmental and preservation groups can protect their independent
and shared interests.

20

Chapter 2
Shared Interests between Heritage and Environmental Conservation

The relationship between the fields of environmentalism and historic preservation has
been established for decades and matured in recent years. In part, this is due to the progress of
the environmental movement. The environmental impact of human activity in the United States
began to be revealed with the publication of Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962.
46

Environmentalism was initially concerned with ecology and global health issues encouraged by
later incidents such as the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill.
47
However, the 150
th
anniversary of
Frederick Law Olmsted’s birth in 1972 opened up a larger conversation about cultural
landscapes and environmental conservation. “As the focus of the environmental movement
evolved from the conservation of ecologically or aesthetically distinctive places…to
neighborhood open spaces as natural resources, activists rediscovered nineteenth-century parks
and cemeteries, waterfronts, and other open spaces…which once again became cherished
places.”
48

Daniel A. Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft name in their book, Toward Sustainable
Communities, three epochs, or periods, of the environmental movement since 1970. The first
period, “Regulating for Environmental Protection” ranged from 1970-1990 and consisted of the
creation of platforms for environmental policy, regulating hazards like air and water pollution.
The second phase, “Efficiency-Based Regulatory Reform and Flexibility,” spanned from 1980
through the 2000s and shifted advocacy from broad policies to local-level legislation to promote
greater compliance and enforcement regarding pollution. The third and current phase, “Toward
Sustainable Communities,” began in 1990 and involves collaboration. According to Mazmanian
and Kraft, this most recent phase ties together natural systems and human systems on a
46
Eliza Grisworld, “How ‘Silent Spring’ Ignited the Environmental Movement,” New York Times, September 21
2012, accessed March 8, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-
environmental-movement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
47
“Oil, Oil, Everywhere…” Los Angeles Times, February 3, 1969, accessed March 12, 2015.
48
David Schuyler and Patricia M. O’Donnell, “History and Preservation of Urban Parks and Cemeteries,” chap. 3 in
Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. Melnick, eds., Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2000), 73.
21

sustainable basis. This collaborative phase focusing on meeting environmental needs through
system design and management.
49

When considering human and natural systems, there are several overlapping elements
which may not come to mind initially. With the perspective that the historic and designed
environment are key part of the human ‘system,’ historic preservation (heritage conservation)
gains an environmental quality. The sustainability which lies in existing designed resources is
conveyed through their embodied energy, efficient design, irreplaceable materials, and their
frequent proximity to transit lines and main street corridors. With these characteristics, historic
resources begin to take on environmental value. This sustainability in existing cityscapes
encourages collaboration between environmental and preservation advocates. Together these
fields achieve the more holistic perspective of collaborative conservation, leading to a greater
quality of life.
Areas in which historic preservation and environmental activists may experience overlap
in their work include:
• Transportation
• Construction/Development
• Aesthetic and Cultural Value
• Civic Engagement
• Residential Quality of Life Expectations
• Economics
These are not the only instances in which professionals in these fields may see eye-to-
eye, but they are important aspects of both communities. These aspects of environmentalism and
preservation are what create the likeminded perspective between these two fields in
conservation.

49
Daniel A. Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft, eds., Towards Sustainable Communities: Transition and
Transformations in Environmental Policy, 2
nd
ed. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 4-10.
22

Transportation
Historic cityscapes can be more walkable and provide greater access to public transit
because historic downtowns, main streets, and neighborhoods generally include, “mixed land
uses, narrower streets, shorter blocks, more intersections, compact town centers, and centrally-
located schools, stores, and job centers.”
50

In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which
brought together a coalition of historic preservationists, planners, environmentalists, and
transportation advocates to consider improvement plans for major transportation law.
51

Preservationists made the claim that rather than focus on building new highways and modes of
travel for automobile traffic, funds and efforts should be put into renewing existing infrastructure
on city streets. This was argued because the creation of new highways is traditionally devastating
to historic neighborhoods through the demolition of designed resources, drastically changing the
feel and character of these areas. Boyle Heights, a neighborhood of East Los Angeles, was
physically transformed with the construction of the Santa Monica Freeway in the first half of the
1960s. The freeway was constructed through residential neighborhoods and resulted in a
substantial loss of historic and cultural resources for the community.
52

With encouragement from the U.S. Department of Transportation, congress could
prioritize research on the utilization of existing transit lines, historic, and environmental
resources near these city centers. Design studios with a civic focus and New Urbanist
organizations could use this research to argue the need to reduce the number of automobiles.
53

These groups argue that continuing to design for automobiles diminishes pedestrian activity due
50
Constance E. Beaumont, “The Critical Need for a Sensitive – and Sensible – National Transportation Policy,”
National Trust for Historic Preservation ForumJournal (Fall 2012), 14.
51
Ibid.
52
Nathan Masters, “Creating the Santa Monica Freeway: Building Walls Across Communities,” KCET, September
10, 2012, accessed February 22, 2015, http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/south-robertson/creating-the-santa-
monica-freeway-building-walls-across-communities.html.
53
“What is CNU?,” Congress for New Urbanism, accessed March 12, 2015, http://www.cnu.org/who_we_are. New
Urbanism is a planning methodology developed in the late 1980s and popularized with the establishment of the
Congress for New Urbanism in 1993. New Urbanist organizations have grown in number throughout the United
States, and typically focus their efforts in metropolitan areas. They advocate for urban master plans which cater to
pedestrians rather than automobiles. The Congress for New Urbanism advocates for compact, walkable city blocks,
a broad range of housing choices to serve a diverse population, human-scaled cities with buildings that represent
their residents, and establishments necessary for city living (stores, schools, etc.) to be available by walking,
bicycling, or transit to residents.
23

to concerns for safety.
54
Accommodating increased amounts of automobiles in high-density
living areas like historic downtowns has proven dangerous for pedestrians and put these
neighborhoods at risk.
55
If new infrastructure and upgrades aim to improve pedestrian safety and
enjoyment, they can result in increased pedestrian participation. By embracing this approach
which respects the contributions of the built environment, users of these historic downtowns and
other places can build appreciation for their communities on-foot. The resulting appreciation can
contribute to the commendation of historic cultural resources, and a lower environmental impact
as a result.
Construction/Development
New construction can hold significant environmental impacts. For example, the proposed
expansion of the 710 freeway in Pasadena, California as currently lobbied by its proponents
could mean the demolition of as many as 1,500 homes and six designated historic districts, as
well as the removal of 7,000 trees.
56
Often, environmental and historic preservation advocates
mutually oppose new construction with substantial impacts.
Environmental and preservation advocates can find a shared interest in adaptive reuse,
which retains historic fabric and cultural resources, utilizes existing building stock, prevents
excessive grading, and decreases traffic during construction processes. The process of adaptive
reuse enables “…the merging of two disciplines: historic preservation and green building. It
requires an understanding of how to respect and renew what is already here and a vision for
where and how to transform the legacy of the past into the promise of tomorrow.”
57

Historic buildings constructed during or before the mid-twentieth century often utilized
designs and construction methods developed over centuries of building practice with individual
components designed to be repaired or replaced only as necessary.
58
Rather than be planned for
obsolescence, these buildings were built to last, and because of their ease of repair and the
54
Sarah Goodyear, “As More Cities Adopt ‘Vision Zero,’ A Grand Experiment Emerges on U.S. Streets,” CityLab
by the Atlantic, February 20, 2015, accessed February 23, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/02/as-more-
cities-adopt-vision-zero-a-grand-experiment-emerges-on-us-streets/385679/.
55
Beaumont, “The Critical Need,” 19.
56
Ibid., 17.
57
Carl Elefante, “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built,” National Trust for Historic Preservation
ForumJournal 21, no. 4 (Fall 2012), 68.
58
Richard Moe, foreword to Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2010).
24

durability of their materials, these buildings “have almost unlimited renewability.”
59
This
material provides multiple benefits for stability and practical building use.
60
The Gamble House,
a Pasadena Craftsman Style residence built by architects Charles and Henry Greene in 1908, is
built with significant quantities of Teak, Douglas fir, Mahogany, Oak, and Cedar.
61
The home’s
roof rafters run the length of the entire home in some instances, and are irreplaceable. Wood used
in the home’s construction was harvested from old growth forests now depleted.
62
The Gamble
House demonstrates on a grand scale the value that lies in buildings constructed before the mid-
twentieth century. Many wood frame buildings before this period were constructed with this old
growth wood.
63
The energy embodied in these resources through the harvesting and assembly of
their material is a substantial argument against their demolition. Buildings such as the Gamble
House truly embody the idea that “‘They don’t make them like they used to’ is more than an
empty phrase: It’s an indictment of our thoughtlessness – and a mistake we simply can’t afford to
keep making.”
64

Though the use of industrial materials in construction amplified through Mid-Century
Modern Style, even these cultural resources designed with then-new technologies demonstrate
masterful design and an investment through their embodied energy which should not be
neglected.
65
The eleven-story office building was constructed in 1959 with an innovative louver
system to accommodate airflow and natural light, along with an open ground floor and courtyard
plan. Even without wood, these design characteristics embody the consideration in historic
design seen aesthetically, culturally, and environmentally.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Jeff Prugh, “A 1908 Wonder in Wood: The Three-Story Gamble House Continues to Impress Visitors, Including
Students of Architecture and History,” Los Angeles Times, July 29, 1994, accessed March 12, 2015,
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-29/news/va-21232_1_gamble-house.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Moe, foreword to Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings.
65
Ibid.
25

Figure 2.1. Southern California Edison Local Headquarters designed by Kenneth S. Wing & Associates in Long
Beach, California. Shown in the process of adaptive reuse (2014). Photograph by the author.
The Southern California Edison building is also an example of adaptive reuse. Whether
constructed of concrete, wood, or metal, existing buildings are valuable due to their embodied
energy. Through the harvest, manufacture, and assembly of these materials, an environmental
impact is created. The materials remaining in the building represent this established, or
embodied, impact. Discarding the materials results not only in the loss of the materials and the
impact from processing them for waste, but also results in the loss of the embodied impact.
The Edison building is in the process of adaptive reuse to become residential units. The
former headquarters will be converted to twelve-stories with retail opportunities at street level.
66

The City of Long Beach came to own and operate the building after it was left by Southern
California Edison. It was used as a temporary headquarters for the Long Beach Police
Department while the Department’s permanent home, the Long Beach Safety Building,
66
“The Edison,” Ratkovich Properties, accessed February 23, 2015, http://ratkovichproperties.com/portfolio/edison-
lofts-long-beach-ca/.
26

underwent a complete rehabilitation.
67
The building sat vacant for eight years following the
relocation of the Long Beach Police Department until it was acquired by its current owner.
68

Ratkovich Properties, the developer that operates the entity of ownership for the now-renamed
Edison Lofts, purchased the building to redevelop the historic structure and is now making
progress on the project.
The current number of vacant buildings, similar to the Southern California Edison
building before its acquisition, is enormous. In Long Beach alone there were over 259
unoccupied buildings with uncertain futures in 2013 as a result of the disbanded Redevelopment
Agency.
69
The large amount of unoccupied spaces throughout the state affected by the
elimination of these agencies has created opportunities for adaptive reuse or rehabilitation as an
alternative to demolition. In the United States alone, approximately one billion square feet of the
built environment is demolished each year.
70
In conserving these buildings, consequences which
arise from demolition are avoided or mitigated to a much less destructive level. For
preservationists, building demolition is seen as a worst-case scenario, robbing communities of
cultural resources which allow for the interpretation of regional history and build community
presence.
The consequences of building demolition also include increased traffic and congestion at
construction sites, air and water pollution and runoff caused during construction, and the
deposition of construction and building debris into landfills during and after project completion.
Some cities operate programs which require or incentivize contractors to recycle materials. The
City of Long Beach operates a Construction and Demolition Recycling Program which requires
contractors to pay the City a deposit proportional to the project cost when receiving permits.
Contractors or property owners must prove a substantial percentage of waste resulting from the
67
Eric Bradley, “Long Beach City Hall East to Become Urban Lofts,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, June 23, 2013,
accessed March 12, 2015, http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20130623/long-beach-city-hall-east-to-
become-urban-lofts.
68
Brian Addison, “Long Beach: City Hall East Closes Escrow; the Edison Lofts Officially Moves In,” Streetsblog:
LA, June 14, 2013, accessed February 23, 2015, http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/long-beach-long-beach-city-
hall-east-closes-escrow-the-edison-lofts-officially-moves-in/.
69
Gisela Marino, “City Officials Present Management Plan for Former RDA Properties,” Long Beach Post, October
1, 2013, accessed February 23, 2015, http://lbpost.com/news/city/2000002890-city-officials-prepare-a-property-
management-plan-in-underserved-areas-for-approval.
70
National Trust for Historic Preservation et al., The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of
Building Reuse (2011), ix.
27

project has been recycled in order to have the money returned. This program provides an
incentive for adaptive reuse and rehabilitation projects, but does not provide an incentive for
demolition, as large developers often have little interest in regaining a nominal fee in relation to
substantial financial gain from proceeding with new construction.
71

Aesthetic and Cultural Value
Neighborhoods and cityscapes are often carefully planned and designed to craft an
experience. In many cases, these experiences can be interrupted by unintended additions or
removals of designed elements. This interruption could occur in the near future if the proposed
710 Freeway expansion in South Pasadena, California, takes place.
Commercial centers, and community resources can be significant for reasons other than
design. Wyvernwood, a garden apartment complex in Los Angeles, was designed to provide
communal apartment living with the lifestyle of a single family home. Latino residents in Los
Angeles found cultural identification in this design, as it integrated the idealistic American
lifestyle with the community-based living traditionally held important. Today, Latino residents
have lived at Wyvernwood for over fifty years, and are fighting for the conservation of the
historic residential complex. The complex, now much more than just a residential base, has
become a cultural hub for Latino community, empowerment, and activism for the last half-
century. The proposed demolition of Wyvernwood for redevelopment would bear an
environmental impact in a densely-populated residential area, resulting in the loss of a great
cultural resource to the city.
72

Civic Engagement
Historic downtown neighborhoods and city cores are planned to be less reliant on cars,
increasing the number of pedestrians. Though historic buildings have been razed to
accommodate needs for increased parking in downtown areas, new groups focused on urban
perspectives have begun to draw the design sector away from this habit. These groups are
71
Interview with former City of Long Beach Employee, July 8, 2014.
72
David Zahniser, “L.A. Councilman Jose Huizar States Opposition to Boyle Heights Development Proposal,” Los
Angeles Times, April 1, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/01/local/la-me-boyle-
heights-20110401.
28

encouraging use of transportation lines and the implementation of a stronger bike path and
pedestrian networks to encourage health and participation in the community.
73

Walking through a neighborhood as opposed to driving presents opportunities for
observation and interaction, leading to stronger community ties and economic success. In high-
density urban areas “design characteristics…include the architecture or buildings; the width, tree
canopy, and placement of sidewalks; and the vistas in a park; which when taken collectively
create a sense of place.”
74

Walking is made more difficult in suburban developments outside of city centers due to
sprawl. Stores, restaurants, and workplaces in these areas are generally too great of a distance
from housing to walk, and public transit is not typically available. Even in historic city centers,
the addition of shopping centers or outdoor malls makes for a lack of by-foot transportation.
These centers often lack sidewalks and can be separated by wide roads filled with heavy traffic
that are intimidating to pedestrians.
75
This lack of interaction with the streetscape leads to a
decreased connection with the built environment. The small but important interactions fostered
through increased accessibility lead to civic participation and investment in the local community.
Residential Quality of Life Expectations
Human quality of life refers to noneconomic elements in the environment which
contribute to human livelihood, and the natural human right to a healthy and prosperous physical
environment.
76
“People of every ethnic and economic background place a high value on it.”
77

There are many different fields and service areas which prioritize quality of life in their line of
work. Among these are environmental and heritage conservation.
Environmental advocates work to stabilize environmental health, reduce negative impacts
on the environment which result from human activity, and ensure that enjoyable recreation
73
Brian Ulaszewski (Executive Director, City Fabrick), in discussion with the author, September 5, 2014. City
Fabrick, a nonprofit design studio in Long Beach, has worked to convert underused or unnecessary bridges,
roadways, and parking lots into pedestrian park spaces. The group has contributed to the City’s alteration of parking
requirements for each housing unit in Downtown Long Beach from two parking spaces for each unit to one and one
half parking spaces for each unit.
74
Howard Frumkin, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Jackson, Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning,
and Building for Healthy Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2004), 99.
75
Beaumont, “The Critical Need,” 18.
76
Howe, Balancing Nature and Commerce, 9.
77
Ibid.
29

opportunities involving natural resources are available. Heritage conservation advocates aim to
prevent the loss of historic cultural resources to foster community development, civic
engagement, and aesthetic value.
The support of this greater concept of quality of life ensures residents in developed
regions are given the elements required to achieve a balance of health and livelihood.
Organizations in these communities exist to ensure this standard is upheld. Recognizing quality
of life as a priority in both environmental and heritage conservation provides avenues for
residents to interact with their community.
Economics
In addition to environmental benefit, there is potential for strong economic gain in the
adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of existing building stock. As Donovan Rypkema stated in his
essay, “Economic and Historic Preservation,” not performing maintenance on existing buildings
and infrastructure is an incredible waste of public funds.
78
Since institutional buildings,
roadways, and pedestrian amenities are typically built using taxpayer dollars, to allow them to
deteriorate and perform improper maintenance essentially wastes assets that have already been
paid for.
These types of incidents can be avoided or lessened by creating a formal program of
downtown revitalization and upkeep. Donovan Rypkema observes,
Every community has already made a huge investment of public funds in downtown
streets, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, parking lots, streetlights, and other
infrastructure. A downtown that is allowed to deteriorate with buildings sitting empty
wastes assets that have already been paid for…Commitment to downtown revitalization
and reuse of downtown’s historic buildings may be the most effective single act of fiscal
responsibility a local government can take. (“Economics and Historic Preservation,”
National Trust for Historic Preservation ForumJournal (Fall 2012), 49).
From a real estate perspective, the value of land in a city can be decreased if there is an
excess of abandoned buildings, or alternatively, an excess of empty lots within a densely
78
Donovan Rypkema, “Economics and Historic Preservation,” National Trust for Historic Preservation
ForumJournal 27, no. 1 (Fall 2012), 49.
30

populated area.
79
When faced with existing buildings which have been allowed to deteriorate,
cities and building owners choose from rehabilitation or demolition. While demolishing these
neglected structures can be a solution, rehabilitating the historic or existing buildings can
revitalize communities. These revitalizing projects increase property values, but also can inspire
similar undertakings for other abandoned or dilapidated buildings in the area. “The rehabilitation
of abandoned housing doesn’t just preserve a single building. It preserves the value of the entire
neighborhood. That’s what historic preservation has become…It’s about restoring communities,
and that includes restoring the economic value of communities.”
80

Unifying these Factors through Green Rating Systems
To evaluate the benefit provided by a building to its surrounding region, the United States
Green Building Council (USGBC) has created a series of green rating systems.
81
These systems
provide incentives to those who comply with them and encourage designers and architects to
incorporate elements in the built environment which promote human quality of life objectives
and achieve a higher level of environmental sustainability.
82
Although these rating systems
attempt to meet objectives shared by the fields of environmentalism and historic preservation,
they are typically not intended for use in evaluating historic cultural resources.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the most commonly used
system to promote this environmental approach to design, but its metric puts historic resources at
a disadvantage. The system measures buildings based upon their site, water efficiency, energy
use, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.
83
Though historic resources can
achieve substantial balance in each of these applications, the system more heavily weighs the
application of new, energy-efficient means of design in each of these areas than efficient existing
design methodology.
The Living Building Challenge is a rating system first launched by the Cascadia Region
Building Council, a chapter of the USBGC and the Canada Green Building Council in 2006.
84

79
Ibid.
80
Ibid., 49-50.
81
Jean Carroon, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010),
90.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid, 92.
84
Ibid, 94.
31

The Living Building Challenge is one of the most recent rating systems to appear, and it is one of
the most practical for measuring environmentally sustainable design in historic buildings. The
Living Building Challenge rates buildings higher if they reuse existing material on the site during
rehabilitation or redevelopment.
85
This contrasts with other rating systems which place higher
value on the use of new efficient design tools manufactured using recycled materials.
86
The
Living Building Challenge has yet to be applied in Southern California, but the first projects are
in the exploratory phase.
87

Each of the aforementioned elements (transportation, construction/development, aesthetic
and cultural value, civic engagement, residential quality of life, and economics) have been
addressed through either environmental or historic preservation advocates. The overlap between
the two fields has been recognized in some of these focus areas, particularly construction and
development. Partnerships like the one between the National Trust for Historic Preservation and
the Urban Land Institute resulted in Learning from Los Angeles, a significant report on the
prosperous state of adaptive reuse in Los Angeles.
88
Common interest between the two fields is
further emphasized by the hard truth that human-imposed climate change holds a broad range of
consequences regardless of economics, education, or location.
89

Rather than continue with new construction, environmental impacts in development
should be minimized as much as possible through material reuse and building maintenance. The
amount of available building stock creates opportunities for adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, and
performance improvement. It is estimated that about six percent of this building stock was
constructed before 1920, and another eleven percent is composed of buildings constructed
through the mid-1940s.
90
The renewal of these existing buildings optimizes their embodied
85
Ibid.
86
Ibid.
87
Walker Wells (Vice President of Programs and Director of the Green Urbanism Program, Global Green USA), in
discussion with the author, February 3, 2015.
88
National Trust for Historic Preservation and Urban Land Institute, Learning from Los Angeles (October 2013), 3.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Urban Land Institute maintain their alliance, the Partnership for
Building Reuse, which works to enhance opportunities for adaptive reuse in major cities throughout the United
States. This partnership was founded in 2012 and begun with the creation of Learning from Los Angeles.
89
Mazmanian and Kraft, “The Three Epochs,” 3.
90
Elefante, “The Greenest Building,” 64.
32

energy, and prevents the harvesting, transportation, and assembly of new materials to construct a
replacement building.
91

In Learning from Los Angeles, the partnership between the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and the Urban Land Institute outlined suggestions for creating a more successful
climate for adaptive reuse and decreased new construction. These groups suggested that city
agencies decrease demands for proposed projects rather than adding new when adopting
Adaptive Reuse Ordinances. In addition, Learning from Los Angeles suggested cities adjust their
definition of historic preservation and building reuse to broaden conversations moving forward.
92

To further the growing connection between environmental and heritage conservation,
these groups can partner in their efforts to protect cultural resources. Following stable
partnerships, environmental and heritage conservation professionals can work together to
establish new collaborative conservation policies which further the interests of both fields more
so than those currently in place.

91
National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Greenest Building, 21.
92
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Learning from Los Angeles, 35.
33

Chapter 3
Long Beach, California – Collaborative Conservation (in)action

To demonstrate the shared interests between the environmental and preservation
communities, it is necessary to cite examples of crossover in the two lines of work. Following
are two examples – in one instance, environmental and heritage conservation advocates
collaborated in success. In another instance – failure. The outcomes of these cases were largely
dependent on collaboration and whether the ruling party was not a stakeholder in the project at
hand.
These occurrences in Los Angeles County demonstrate the potential that lies in
collaborative heritage and environmental conservation when accompanied by a neutral ruling
body. Though limited success can be observed, the outcomes in both instances may have been
more prosperous if actionable collaborative conservation policy had been available. By moving
forward with a collaborative conservation approach, the lines that divided the two groups can be
blurred and more positive outcomes can be reached for both natural and designed resources.
Roosevelt Naval Base
In 1998, Roosevelt Naval Base was demolished. Residents, veterans, environmentalists,
and preservationists mourned its loss. The demolition resulted in the loss of cultural and
environmental assets. With a vested interest in the outcome, decision makers in the case were
unable to impartially evaluate the possibilities for preservation. Instead, they actively pursued
demolition of the historic resource.
The base was without question historically significant. Upon its construction, it was
reported that, “The gist of it is that quietly, efficiently, Uncle Sam has been equipping the Los
Angeles area to service the fleet fighting the Pacific war…the buildings compel attention.
Modern, streamlined, depending on simplicity and the combining of concrete walls with
window…rather than ornamentation, they will doubtless be set down as added proof that
contemporary functional design has a dignity – or can have – to rival the antique.”
93

93
Kimmis Hendrick, “Naval Base Extraordinary,” The Christian Science Monitor, September 18, 1943, accessed
December 20, 2014.
34

Designed by the “Allied Engineers” and constructed in 1943, the base integrated
landscape design by Hammond Sadler. The architectural group was comprised of firms led by
Paul R. Williams, Adrian Wilson, and Donald R. Warren. At the time, A. Quincy Jones and
Frederick E. Emmons worked under their supervision. Built in the International Style, the base
had great architectural merit in its all-inclusive plan.

Figure 3.1. Grounds at Roosevelt Naval Base looking West to San Pedro. Source: Historic American Buildings
Survey: Roosevelt Base. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division,
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca2253.photos.376196p/resource/ (accessed November 20, 2014).
The base boasted facilities composed of wharves, sheds, a gymnasium, auditorium,
swimming pool, administration buildings, a wedding chapel, and shops – all along the California
coast.
94
When construction was announced, the campus was estimated to cost $23,000,000 to
construct, marking a significant investment in naval activity in Long Beach.
95
Upon its
94
“Expansion of Naval Facilities Gives Capt. Coffman New Title,” Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1941, accessed
December 20, 2014.
95
Ibid.
35

dedication on September 1, 1941, the Roosevelt Naval Base was declared to be the “largest fleet
operating base in the world.”
96

The naval complex spanning the Los Angeles–Long Beach boundary included a large dry
dock shipbuilding facility, the Roosevelt base, and Reeves Field. During this time,
Reeves Field, which was used for aircraft testing and navigation training, flew more
Navy planes fresh from the production line than any other air station in the nation.
97

Figure 3.2. Map of Roosevelt Naval Base. Source: Historic American Building Survey: Roosevelt Base (Naval
Station Long Beach), 18.
The construction of such a substantial naval base in the 1940s developed Long Beach’s
identity as a Navy town. “During the fever of World War II and Vietnam, Long Beach eclipsed
all other West Coast Navy towns in size and prominence.”
98
Navy sailors came to Long Beach
from throughout the country to serve on Roosevelt Base and to transfer ships. Many of these
sailors were from the mid-west, and they gained such a love of the pleasant Southern California
96
“World’s Largest Operating Base for Fleet Dedicated,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1941, accessed
December 20, 2014.
97
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Built Environment Evaluation Report for Properties on Terminal Island , Port
of Los Angeles, City and County of Los Angeles, California, (December 2011), 18.
98
Tina Griego, “Shipping Out Once the Biggest Business in Town, the Downsizing of the Navy Hits at the Very
Heart-and Soul-of Long Beach,” Los Angeles Times, January 13, 1994, accessed December 20, 2014.
36

weather and abundant work opportunities, that they returned after the war with their families.
The resulting influx of new residents following the war as a result of the Navy furthered Long
Beach’s moniker of ‘Iowa by the Sea.’
99

With no major conflict in sight after the Cold War and a changing military strategy,
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney declared the government’s intent to close thirty-one major bases
throughout the country, shrinking the U.S. military by 25%.
100
Roosevelt Naval Base was
temporarily spared, but closure of the base was certain.
101

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed off on a revised list of thirty-five major bases to be
closed, which included Roosevelt Naval Base and six other major facilities in the state of
California.
102
The bases were declared functionally obsolete, as they did not have facilities to
service nuclear vessels.
103
Almost immediately proponents of Long Beach’s naval reputation, as
well as architectural enthusiasts and environmentalists expressed concern for the base’s uncertain
future. Historic preservationists began to garner public support for the site based on its
architectural merit, while environmental groups interested in preventing demolition to spare the
habitat of the coastal birds did the same.
To those who lived nearby, “Long Beach without a Navy was inconceivable.”
104
Several
local veterans and members of the Long Beach community entitled the closure, “The Third
Disestablishment,” harkening back to two prior instances where the base had been temporary
closed (1950 and 1974). They hoped it would reopen as it had done in those cases, but the
99
“Hawkeyes Take Town by Storm: Twenty Thousand Picnic at Long Beach…,” Los Angeles Times, August 14,
1927, accessed March 19, 2015. ; California State University, Long Beach, Paul Revere Williams: A Legend in
Architecture (Long Beach, CA: Long Beach Navy Memorial Heritage Association, 2007), DVD. Long Beach’s
reputation as “Iowa by the Sea” erupted as residents of Iowa and other neighboring states made their way to
Southern California for health benefits and an advertised Mediterranean climate in the 1920s. A 1927 Los Angeles
Times article notes that more than 20,000 former Iowans gathered at Bixby Park in Long Beach to build community
and celebrate with the Iowa State Society of California.
100
John M. Broder, “Cheney Seeks to Close 31 Major Bases in U.S.,” Los Angeles Times, April 13, 1991, accessed
December 20, 2014.
101
Tina Griego, “Naval Station Gets 1
st
Black Captain,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 1992, accessed December 20,
2014. While Roosevelt Naval Base remained open, it continued to host fleet ships and also came to welcome its first
black Navy Captain, Isaiah John Jones, in July of 1992.
102
Art Pine, “Clinton Signs Off on Base Closure List,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1993, accessed December 20,
2014, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-02/news/mn-9247_1_base-closures.
103
Edmund Newton, “U.S. Officials Tour Shipyard,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1995, accessed December 20,
2014.
104
Emily Adams, “A Final Salute for the Base That Once Was a Gateway for Many to State,” Los Angeles Times,
October 1, 1994, accessed December 20, 2014.
37

closure in 1994 proved to be final. Land ownership was transferred from the United States
Military to the City of Long Beach.
105

After evaluating bids to take ownership of the location, the City of Long Beach granted
jurisdiction over the naval base and the neighboring Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the Port of
Long Beach in 1995.
106
Processes to follow during a federal base closure were outlined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and required that the U.S. Navy complete an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and document the site in accordance with Historic American
Building Survey (HABS) standards.
107
The historic significance of the base was recorded as
follows,
The Roosevelt Base Historic District, constructed in 1940-1943, consist[ed] of 11
buildings designed in the International Style with Mediterranean Revival detailing, five
structures, and extensive historic landscaping. [The base was] eligible for the National
Register for its site planning, landscaping, architectural style, and its Associate Architect
Paul Williams, a nationally prominent Los Angeles Afro-American architect.
Additionally, the District [was] significant for its association with the buildup of
permanent Naval facilities on the Pacific Coast under President Franklin D. Roosevelt,
during the mobilization period preceding the United States’ entry into World War II.
(Alexandra C. Cole, Fermina B. Murray, and William B. Dewey, Historic American
Building Survey: Roosevelt Base (Naval Station Long Beach) (Santa Barbara, United
States Navy, 1996), 2.)
Immediately after the transfer of the title, the Port of Long Beach entered into an
agreement with the Chinese Government to allow their commercial shipping corporation,
COSCO, to build a large-scale terminal on the site. This agreement to lease the land to COSCO
for commercial purposes required demolition of Roosevelt Naval Base.
The Port of Long Beach came under fire when the HABS documentation and EIR were
publicized because the cultural resources on the site of Roosevelt Naval Base were historically
105
Ibid.
106
Jeff Leeds, “Fight Over Long Beach Base Brews,” Los Angeles Times, September 4, 1996, accessed December
20, 2014.
107
“Southeast; Famed Architect’s Buildings Set to be Razed,” Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1996, accessed
December 20, 2014.
38

significant and the base had reportedly become a habitat for critical coastal species. “I don’t
think the city of Long Beach and its citizens were aware of the significance of the
buildings…primarily because they have…never [been] accessible to the public.”
108

Figure 3.3. Roosevelt Naval Base Administration Building. Photograph by William B. Dewey. Source: Historic
American Buildings Survey: Roosevelt Base. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division,
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca2439.photos.325387p/resource (accessed November 20, 2014).
The battle that ensued over the fate of Roosevelt Naval Base was entirely unanticipated.
What the Port of Long Beach had expected to be a simple process to build a terminal became a
regional issue of contention. Preservationists were up in arms to defend Long Beach’s integrity
as a naval town, while veterans and environmental activists presented their own conflicts with
the plan. Preservationists had an interest in seeing the campus preserved for its architectural
significance. Veterans felt the Chinese government had no place on American soil.
Environmental advocates were concerned about habitat stability and marine health after
108
Elle Calomiris of Long Beach Heritage, quoted in “Southeast; Famed Architect’s Buildings Set to be Razed,” Los
Angeles Times, March 20, 1996, accessed December 20, 2014.
39

demolition. Despite the backlash, proponents of the Port’s lease plan with COSCO stated that the
proposed terminal construction would create up to 600 badly-needed jobs.
109
“The only thing
lost, of course, was a piece of Long Beach’s soul.”
110

In 1996, it was determined that the Port had signed the lease with COSCO before the
Environmental Impact Report was completed.
111
Long Beach Heritage sued the Port of Long
Beach on the basis that the Port conducted an inadequate Environmental Impact Report and
violated CEQA by not considering alternatives to the project before moving forward with
demolition.
112
The preservation organization insisted that the Port of Long Beach’s lack of
knowledge of the historic resources on the site of Roosevelt Naval Base demonstrated their
dismissal of the HABS documentation and Environmental Impact Report which accompanied the
base upon the transfer of ownership from the U.S. Navy.
113
In addition, the organization argued
that the City and Port of Long Beach’s financial interest in seeing the COSCO lease through to
completion compromised the parties’ abilities to fairly explore alternatives to demolition.
114
The
Audubon Society joined Long Beach Heritage in the suit.
115
While preservationists fought for the
base’s architectural integrity, environmentalists joined to protect coastal birds and the
surrounding marine environment. This lawsuit was aptly timed, coinciding with suits from
neighboring cities Vernon and Compton, both claiming the construction and increased traffic
from the COSCO terminal would result in harmful increased traffic upon their infrastructure.
116

109
Jeff Leeds, “Ruling May Block Long Beach Port Project,” Los Angeles Times, May 21, 1997, accessed December
20, 2014.
110
Robert A. Jones, “Defying the Job God,” Los Angeles Times, September 18, 1996, accessed December 20, 2014.
111
Long Beach Heritage v. the Port of Long Beach, personally distributed by Douglas Carstens, e-mail message to
author, January 9, 2015.
112
Long Beach Heritage v. the Port of Long Beach.
113
“Two Lawsuits Challenge Demolition of Naval Station,” Los Angeles Times, October 8, 1996, accessed
December 20, 2014. The documentation and EIR provided to the City of Long Beach upon acceptance of ownership
clearly outlined the historic significance and environmental value in the site.
114
Douglas Carstens, interview.
115
Douglas Carstens, e-mail message to author, January 9, 2015. Though not formally involved in the lawsuit, the
Audubon Society was a strong supporter of Long Beach Heritage through the trials process in partnership with the
Sierra Club.
116
“Two Lawsuits Challenge Demolition of Naval Station.” ; Chris DiEdoardo, “Cancellation of COSCO Lease by
Long Beach Hailed by Conservatives,” San Diego Daily Transcript, April 15, 1997, accessed December 20, 2014.
The premature lease of the land underneath Roosevelt Naval Base to COSCO was ultimately cancelled by a court-
order due to the lawsuits by the cities of Vernon and Compton. The cancellation was demanded in April of 1997, but
was not carried out by the Port of Long Beach until September of 1998. Even with the cancellation, Mayor Beverly
O’Neill and the Port were determined to continue with the plan. She was quoted as saying, “…it simply means we
will go out and find new customers for the facility.” “History’s Last Chance in Long Beach,” Robert A. Jones, Los
Angeles Times, September 13, 1998, accessed December 20, 2014.
40

The lawsuit filed by advocates made headway, as Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Robert H. O’Brien sided with the preservationists and ruled on February 27, 1997 that the Port of
Long Beach had rushed too soon into their partnership with COSCO following receipt of
ownership. The Port Commission responded by withdrawing its vote of approval for the COSCO
terminal, and announcing they would reconsider the project and put it to a second vote. The Port,
meanwhile, did not cancel the lease with COSCO or commission their own environmental
review.
117

Veterans in Long Beach were up in arms over the Chinese Government building facilities
on their soil. The city had built its identity as a town inhabited by and surrounded by Naval
forces, and in the short period of three years it had not only lost its military presence, but foreign
government agencies were coming ashore. It quickly appeared that “what started as a potential
moneymaker [had] deteriorated into a public relations fiasco for the Port of Long Beach.”
118

The rebellion from Long Beach residents and the Port of Long Beach’s court-ordered
inability to move forward on the lease had forced COSCO to explore other options for a
permanent terminal on the Pacific coast.
119
The project took another blow when O’Brien ruled in
1997 that the Port of Long Beach would have to formally cancel the pre-existing lease with
COSCO in order to reevaluate the project “free and clear,” without any prior commitments.
120

The Port of Long Beach wanted to prove their commitment to the project to COSCO, in
hopes of avoiding a suit over breach of contract. In May of 1997, Port Officials voted to appeal
the decision by Judge O’Brien that “the city’s Harbor Commission was predisposed to approve
the project before it fully evaluated the impact on the environment.”
121
While the appeals process
moved forward, the Port was forced to begin again and vote ‘free and clear’ on a best-case
scenario moving forward for the land at Roosevelt Naval Base. The Navy provided input,
narrowing the choices to “converting the base into a container terminal, opening an automobile
shipping terminal, or retaining the essential nature of the base by allowing government agencies
117
Jeff Leeds, “Long Beach Base Conversion Draws Protest,” Los Angeles Times, March 13, 1997, accessed
December 20, 2014.
118
Leeds, “Long Beach Base Conversion Draws Protest.”
119
Jones, “History’s Last Chance in Long Beach.”
120
“Harbor Panel Votes to Cancel China Shipping Company Lease,” Los Angeles Times, April 15, 1997, accessed
December 20, 2014.
121
“Port Officials to Appeal Ruling on Cargo Terminal,” Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1997, accessed December 20,
2014.
41

to use it for administrative offices.”
122
The second and third options for the base would have
allowed for most or all of the buildings to remain, resulting in minimal demolition.
With rising tensions and a public relations crisis in the city, the Port of Long Beach
approached Long Beach Heritage for an out-of-court settlement in 1998. In their suit, Long
Beach Heritage had argued that the Port had made a commitment to COSCO prior to the release
of the EIR. Though their allegations were based on evidence, lawyers for the group did not have
any precedent to rely upon demonstrating a judicial opposition to precommitment.
123
It was clear
to historic preservationists that the decision made by Judge O’Brien in Los Angeles was not
invulnerable to an overturn by a Court of Appeal.
124
In a settlement, Long Beach Heritage and
the Port of Long Beach drafted a broad agreement resulting in the establishment of a $4.5 million
trust to fund future preservation projects in the City of Long Beach, and the concession of the
preservation organization.
125

Over the next three months, environmental advocates involved in the lawsuit such as the
Audubon Society continued to denounce the Port of Long Beach’s actions at Roosevelt Base.
The groups advocated for the preservation of habitat for Black-Crowned Night Herons nesting at
Roosevelt Naval Base requested the Port perform a second Environmental Impact Report before
moving forward on the project. Long Beach Heritage representatives officially endorsed these
requests proposed by the Audubon Society.
126

The United States Navy then scheduled a formal announcement of which plan they were
to endorse. The announcement had such high turn-out that the City of Long Beach moved the
122
Douglas P. Shuit, “Long Beach Presses Port Plan at Raucous Hearing,” Los Angeles Times, January 15, 1998,
accessed December 20, 2014.
123
Precommitment was not able to be argued as a crime until the decision of Save Tara vs. City of West Hollywood,
which has since allowed for groups like Long Beach Heritage to demonstrate judicial support against cities agreeing
to endanger public assets before considering project alternatives. Douglas Carstens, e-mail message to author,
January 9, 2015.
124
Douglas Carstens, e-mail message to author, December 20, 2014.
125
Dan Weikel, “Long Beach, Port Foes OK Pact,” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 1998, accessed December 20,
2014. ; “Long Beach Navy Memorial Heritage Association,” Long Beach Community Foundation, accessed March
12, 2015, http://www.longbeachcf.org/LBNavyMemHeritageAssoc. The settlement fund is today known as the Long
Beach Navy Memorial Heritage Association. Funding from the association is administered through the Long Beach
Community Foundation and is awarded to projects within the City of Long Beach for preservation projects
involving works of architect Paul Revere Williams, projects which relate to Long Beach’s Naval history, or other
historic preservation related proposals within the city limits. The financial contribution was also accompanied by the
installation of a commemorating plaque dedicated to the memory of the U.S. Navy in Long Beach, installed on the
site of the Long Beach Civic Center.
126
Long Beach Heritage v. the Port of Long Beach.
42

hearing from a 300-seat auditorium in City Hall to a ballroom in the Long Beach Convention
Center’s Terrace Theatre.
127
At the oversized city council meeting, then-Mayor Beverly O’Neill
was booed while summarizing the City’s intent on stage.
128
The Navy announced at the meeting
that they had chosen to officially endorse the Port of Long Beach’s plan to build the COSCO
terminal. With the announcement, momentum to fight was lost.
129

Following the Navy’s endorsement, environmental groups reached an agreement with the
Port of Long Beach to complete the relocation of a colony (up to 500 pairs) of Black-Crowned
Night Herons, the primary bird species which called the Roosevelt Base home. “As part of an
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Port
agreed to relocate the colony prior to construction of the terminal.”
130
The relocation was
successful – after three years of monitoring, 1,128 young were born in 2000.
131

127
Shuit, “Long Beach Presses Port Plan at Raucous Hearing.”
128
Interview with former City of Long Beach employee.
129
Dan Weikel, “Navy Recommends Razing of Former Base’s Historic Buildings,” Los Angeles Times, May 27,
1998, accessed December 20, 2014.
130
S. Crouch, C. Paquette, and D. Vilas, “Relocation of a Large Black-Crowned Night Heron Colony in Southern
California,” Waterbirds 25, no. 4 (2002): 474-478.
131
Ibid.
43

Figure 3.4. Tree relocation in progress at the site of the Black Crowned Night-Heron Colony. Source: Crouch,
Paquette, and Vilas, “Relocation of a Large Black-Night Heron Colony in Southern California,” Waterbirds 25 no. 4
(2002).
Following the agreement to relocate the heron colony, a State Appeals Court “found that
the Port had not violated the California Environmental Quality Act and overturned the lower
court ruling.”
132
With the U.S. Navy’s support of the COSCO terminal and dwindling public
support for preservation, lingering advocates working against the project slowly lost their
resolve.
133

The Port of Long Beach did not complete a second Environmental Impact Report, and the
success gained by Long Beach Heritage and their environmental partners in lower courts was lost
when settlements were reached.
134
Both of the advocacy groups which formally filed against the
132
Weikel, “Navy Recommends Razing of Former Base’s Historic Buildings.”
133
City of Vernon v. Board of Harbor Commissioners of Long Beach, 63 Cal. App. 677 (4th 1998). Though local
organizations interested in protecting Roosevelt Naval Base had moved on from their advocacy, neighboring cities,
including Vernon upheld their suits.
134
Long Beach Heritage considers the events which occurred surrounding the Roosevelt Naval Base demolition as
an accomplishment for preservationists in Long Beach. They note, “Preservation circles around the country said this
was the largest settlement an historic preservation group had ever achieved.” “History of the Navy Trust,” Peter
Devereaux, Long Beach Heritage, updated 2013, accessed November 26, 2014,
http://lbheritage.org/index.php/newsletters/long-beach-stories/183-history-of-the-navy-trust.
44

project received compensation, but neither group achieved its primary goal of convincing the
Port of Long Beach to practice conservation on the site of Roosevelt Naval Base.
The Base was ultimately demolished beginning in November of 1998. Public spectacles
were created out of the demolition to create a lasting and “graphic reminder” of the finality for
the project.
135
The rest of the buildings followed shortly after, save one guard station left along
the Terminal Island Freeway. The building remains as a reminder of “Iowa by the sea,” once a
great Navy town, although it is not acknowledged locally as a historic resource and has no
designation as a landmark at any level.

Figure 3.5.1. Photograph of a Roosevelt Naval Base Guard Station, side view. Photograph by William B. Dewey.
Source: Historic American Buildings Survey: Roosevelt Base. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints and
Photographs Division, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca2447.photos.325475p/resource/ (accessed November 20,
2014). ; Figure 3.5.2. Last remaining building designed by Allied Architects as part of the Roosevelt Naval Base,
street-facing elevation. Gerald Desmond Bridge at Navy Way in Long Beach, California. Photograph by author.
With the lease broken and hefty delays due to the controversy, COSCO chose to relocate
to the Port of Los Angeles. With its relocation, rebellion from Long Beach veterans was diverted.
All major parties opposing demolition moved on from the fight for Roosevelt Naval Base after
the settlements. State trials regarding the Port of Long Beach’s actions continued, but few
appeared to speak out and the State Appeals Court overturned the lower court’s ruling,
determining that the Port of Long Beach was not guilty of violating CEQA.
Environmental and preservation groups acknowledged their mutual interest in seeing the
base conserved, and each of the parties involved reached some form of resolution. Their
135
Art Wong, a spokesperson for the Port of Long Beach, quoted in “2 Naval Station Structures Demolished,” Los
Angeles Times, November 25, 1998, accessed December 20, 2014. The Los Angeles Times even went so far as to
post video footage of the dynamiting of the base’s Administration building on their website for entertainment.
45

collaboration and valid arguments against the proposed project still were not strong enough to
fight “the overwhelming forces the preservation group and the environmentalists were up against
[after] the City and the Port of Long Beach united with the backing of the federal
government.”
136

As a stakeholder with potential economic benefit from the demolition of Roosevelt Naval
Base the Long Beach City Council and Port of Long Beach were unable to vote impartially for or
against the project, resulting in little to no room for an alternate approach. With momentous
obstacles preventing success, Long Beach Heritage and the Audubon Society were both able to
arrive at settlements with the Port of Long Beach which appeased their concerns to a degree.
Though not a result which ensured the preservation of Roosevelt Naval Base, these groups did
gain some success through their collaborative approach to advocacy. The events which took
place during the fight to save Roosevelt Naval Base from demolition allowed for like-minded
stakeholders in the local community to recognize their shared interest and form partnerships.
Partnerships like the ones formed in this set of circumstances can be a first step towards
achieving greater progress in the fields of environmentalism and historic preservation through
policy reform.
137

The Seaport Marina Hotel
The Seaport Marina Hotel stands today as a result of collaboration between
environmental and heritage conservationists. The hotel’s owners are determined to demolish the
site, but prior attempts have been unsuccessful. With the neutrality of the Long Beach City
Council, this case study demonstrates the potential for success in collaborative conservation.
The hotel, opened as the Edgewater Inn, is a Googie Style mid-century complex
composed of several buildings. The most notable of these were designed by Roy A. Sealey in the
1960s. Sealey was employed by Paul R. Williams during the design of Roosevelt Naval Base,
after which he left the architect’s practice in 1945.
138
Very little of Sealey’s career is recorded
136
Douglas Carstens, e-mail message to author, January 9, 2015.
137
Collaborative conservation policies are proposed and occasionally written by coalitions composed of like-minded
advocates for these causes. These policies are implemented by Congress at the state level. For more information on
enacting collaborative conservation policy through partnerships like those which occurred during the fight to save
Roosevelt Naval Base from demolition, see pages 70-81.

46

save for a feature in Ebony magazine from 1950. In the article it is noted that when Sealey left
the firm of Paul R. Williams, Williams suggested he take only a six month leave of absence,
anticipating that a solo career was not in the stars for the young architect.
139
The point was moot,
as in 1950 when the article was published Sealey was running a thriving firm in his own name.
The Seaport Marina Hotel, although a shadow of its original design, is historically
significant in the Long Beach community and plays a role in the local environmental landscape.
In the early 1960s, Long Beach was making headlines as the site of the upcoming 1967 World’s
Fair. The City, desperate to garner an international reputation and strengthen tourism and
commercial activity in the Port of Long Beach, was prepared to pour over $200 million into
planning for the event.
140
New construction for the fair began in 1961 with ocean infill set to
create a new pier, two miles long, near Downtown Long Beach.
141
With as many as forty million
visitors expected over the course of the two year event, construction began on the Seaport
Marina Hotel by then-owner Marina Properties Co.
142
With an established career, Roy A. Sealey
was commissioned to construct a grand hotel. Sealey’s design integrated “200 guest rooms and
suites; three restaurants, a coffee shop; two cocktail lounges; convention and meeting rooms
seating up to 1,500 persons; and a yacht catering service.”
143
In addition to these, the hotel also
boasted a cabana club, parking for over 650 cars, and the first yacht dealership to be located in an
American hotel.
144
Googie design throughout the hotel called for amusement, and went so far as
138
Wesley Howard Henderson, “Two Case Studies of African American Architects’ Careers in Los Angeles, 1890-
1945: Paul R. Williams, FAIA and James H. Garrott, AIA” (PhD Diss., University of California, Los Angeles,
1992), 375, 532. Sealey worked with Williams as a draftsman while his office was commissioned to design
Roosevelt Naval Base, however the definite period of his employment is unconfirmed. It is known that Sealey
graduated from the University of Southern California School of Architecture in 1938, and left his work at the firm of
Paul R. Williams in 1945. In 1950 Ebony magazine published an article on Sealey’s newfound success as a sole
practitioner (see bib). From review of Sealey’s record with the American Institute of Architects (AIA), it appears he
maintained positive relationships with Williams and architect A. Quincy Jones after the design of the Naval Base as
both Williams and Jones signed his 1957 application for AIA membership, recommending approval.
139
“Architect for the Wealthy,” Ebony 5 no. 10 (August 1950), accessed December 9, 2014.
140
“California World’s Fair ‘$200 Million Project’,” Los Angeles Times, October 21, 1962, accessed December 20,
2014.
141
“California World’s Fair ‘$200 Million Project’.”
142
Robert S. Bird, “The Odd Story of Long Beach in California Too Much Money Pouring into the Town,” New
York Herald Tribune, April 29, 1962, accessed December 20, 2014. ; City of Long Beach, Application for Building
Permit, August 16, 1961, accessed April 20, 2014. Building permits for the Seaport Marina Hotel at 6400 E Pacific
Coast Highway in Long Beach list Roy Sealey as architect.
143
“On Marina: Preview Under Way at $3 Million Hotel,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1963, accessed December 20,
2014.
144
“On Marina: Preview Under Way at $3 Million Hotel.”
47

to include telephone ‘booths’ shaped as large seashells to “remind one of Venus on the half-shell
while phoning home.”
145

Figure 3.6. Roy Sealey working in his office. Source: “Architect for the Wealthy,” Ebony 5 no. 10 (August 1950).
Sealey’s design for the then-named Edgewater Inn came on the heels of a growing trend
of ‘Garden Motels,’ modeled after the Bungalow Court apartments seen throughout the city.
146

145
Stan Poe, local Long Beach historian, quoted in Joe Segura, “Shore Patrol: Could Marina Hotel’s Past be Its
Future?,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, December 10, 2009, accessed December 20, 2014.
146
PCR Services Corporation, “2
nd
+ PCH Development Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report,” City of
Long Beach, March 2011, Section II.C-3, accessed December 8, 2014,
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3370.
48

Other examples of this style seen in Long Beach are the City Center Motel by David Clark
(1961) and the Inn of Long Beach by Edward A. Killingsworth (1952).
147

Figure 3.7-3.9. (From left to right) Aerial views of the City Center Motel, the Inn of Long Beach, and the Seaport
Marina Hotel demonstrate central courtyards, paved areas with landscaping, availability of parking, and swimming
pools common in the Garden Motel Style. Source: Aerial photographs taken from Google Earth, accessed March 15,
2015.
The Garden Motel Style is characterized by central courtyards, landscaped garden areas
surrounded by concrete patios, availability of parking for guests, and swimming pools. These
motels were popularized for the interaction and sense of ‘apartment living’ they brought to a
vacation atmosphere. Often, these designs integrated a retail component for a comprehensive
lodging experience.
148
The original plan for the Edgewater Inn demonstrated these traits with a
central plan, a swimming pool, a café, and a yacht dealership.
The yacht dealership was one way in which the Edgewater Inn capitalized on the
grandeur of its location. The inn was centrally located along Pacific Coast Highway on the
border of Orange County, and backed up to the Long Beach Marina to the south. To the north of
the site lay the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Though the Inn was only two stories tall, height was not
required to have beautiful vistas on either side of the establishment.
147
PCR Services Corporation, “2
nd
+ PCH Development,” Section II.C-3. ; Jennifer M. Volland and Cara Mullio,
Edward A. Killingsworth: An Architect’s Life, (Los Angeles: Hennessy & Ingalls, 2013), 122. The 2
nd
+ PCH
Development Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report identifies the Inn of Long Beach as an example of
the Garden Motel Style, but the architect and year are listed as unknown. Edward A. Killingsworth: An Architect’s
Life attributes the Inn of Long Beach to Killingsworth as an extension of the neighboring Lafayette Hotel when it
was operated by Hilton Hotels in 1956. The Inn of Long Beach was originally named the Lafayette Lanais.
148
PCR Services Corporation, “2
nd
+ PCH Development,” Section II.C-3.
49

Figure 3.10. Seaport Marina Hotel (Then Named the Edgewater Inn) as seen looking North from the Long Beach
Marina. Photograph from Long Beach, California postcard. Source: Gold-Coast, “The Marina – Long Beach,
California (1970s),” Ebay, http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970s-Chrome-Postcard-The-Marina-Long-Beach-California-
CA-/370880346432?fromMakeTrack=true (accessed March 1, 2015).
The Seaport Marina Hotel opened to swarms of visitors. In a 1964 advertisement,
management claimed that the establishment had advance bookings running five years into the
future and in excess of $1.25 million.
149

Despite its running success after the grand opening, the hotel hit an unexpected hurdle
just a year after its debut when the City of Long Beach removed itself as the site of the upcoming
World’s Fair by discontinuing a tax proposal that would have financed the required roads and
facilities for the fair.
150
Without the projected income and increased tourism from the prospective
event, the original owner was forced to sell the building and declare bankruptcy in 1966.
151

149
“Convention Business is Big Business (Display Ad 62),” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 1964, accessed December
20, 2014.
150
“Long Beach Rules Self Out as Location of World’s Fair,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1964, accessed
December 20, 2014.
151
“Eisenhower Relative Buys Long Beach Hotel,” Los Angeles Times, December 1, 1966, accessed December 20,
2014.
50

When the hotel was first constructed it was renovated frequently to accommodate
changing tastes and needs in its location. As decades went by the hotel lost business, and with it
the desire to perform maintenance and upgrades.

Figure 3.11. The Seaport Marina Hotel, East Wing facing Pacific Coast Highway. Photograph by author.
While business at the Seaport Marina Hotel dwindled, environmental awareness of the
coastal resources surrounding the site began to rise. The City of Long Beach implemented the
South East Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) in 1977, which included the
location of the Seaport Marina Hotel in its jurisdiction. Under the plan, new construction was
limited in height in an effort to protect the wetlands located north of the hotel, along with the
Marina located to the south.
152

With aging design and a lack of visitor interest, heavy remodeling of the building’s
common areas was again completed in the early 1980s. The original pool was filled and new
152
See Figure 1.1.
51

building was added in front of the original entrance, eliminating the Garden Motel Style street-
facing façade designed by Sealey. Some patio areas were enclosed to create additional office
space in the same year.
153

Figure 3.12. Googie-Style Café, designed by Roy Sealey as part of the original Seaport Marina Plan, juxtaposed next
to a courtyard since filled to create additional office space. Photograph by author.
SEADIP ignited an environmental presence in Southeast Long Beach, which grew in
1994 with the founding of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Stewards.
154
This group was the first of
major environmental organizations working in Southeast Long Beach to protect the coastal
habitat. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Stewards were followed by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land
Trust in 2001 and the Friends of Colorado Lagoon in 2002.
155
These groups work actively in
Southeast Long Beach overseeing real estate transactions involving the Los Cerritos Wetlands,
153
City of Long Beach, Application for Building Permit, Permits from all years spanning 1961-2005, accessed April
20, 2014.
154
“Home,” Los Cerritos Wetlands Stewards, accessed February 23, 2015, http://www.lcwstewards.org/index.html.
155
“About,” Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.lcwlandtrust.org/about-
us.html.
52

fostering recreational use of the wetlands, and maintaining and improving the conditions of the
wetlands.
What remains today of the original design for the Seaport Marina Hotel is an outer shell
and some interior elements of its 1960s Googie design. With spotty character-defining features
and an incoherent theme spanning decades of interior improvements, the hotel retains little
architectural integrity and may not qualify for designation as a historic landmark.

Figure 3.13. Close up of Googie style architectural elements at the Seaport Marina Hotel, North Elevation.
Photograph by author.
In 2006, a replacement project emerged for the site with a proposal to develop for-sale
residential units and a retail shopping center for a substantial $500 million. The partnership was
between a real estate developer and the property owner.
156
The initial project was taken quite
seriously, with construction scheduled to begin in fall of 2007, but it would have required an
156
Don Jergler, “Proposal Would Put Retail, Homes on the Well-traveled Corner,” McClatchy-Tribune Business
News, August 13, 2006, accessed December 20, 2014.
53

amendment to SEADIP in order to demolish the hotel and carry out the proposed new
construction.

Figure 3.14. Rendering of 2006 proposal to replace the Seaport Marina Hotel. Rendering by Lennar Development.
Source: “Tuesday Morning Linkage,” Curbed: LA, entry posted July 10, 2007,
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2007/07/tuesday_morning_16.php (accessed March 20, 2015).
The project faced a major obstacle in its height. At the time, no buildings within the
SEADIP territory were permitted to rise higher than thirty-five feet.
157
The height limit was
created to keep the region at a low-density level to discourage substantial construction and
transportation impact that could harm the sensitive natural resources nearby. The developer
suggested the City of Long Beach allow an exemption from SEADIP to enable the project.
158

Despite an interest in redevelopment, the Long Beach City Council recognized the
concerns of environmental advocates. These groups argued that allowing a for-profit developer
to reform important environmental policies to meet their own needs violated the trust of the
public and the purpose of the policies in place.
159

157
Joe Segura, “Council Considers Public Input for SEADIP,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, August 20, 2007,
accessed December 20, 2014.
158
Segura, “Council Considers Public Input for SEADIP.”
159
Joe Segura, “Development Input Sought,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, June 6, 2007, accessed December 20,
2014.
54

Though the City agreed allowing the exemption was unethical, the proposal prompted
awareness that SEADIP was in need of revision. Concern expressed over the proposal by
environmentalists and due to the City’s interest in updating regulations encouraged the City of
Long Beach to initiate a SEADIP revision.
160
The revision process began in 2008 and is still in
progress. After it began, the developer partnered with the hotel owner abandoned the proposed
project.
In 2009, a new more ambitious project was proposed to replace the Seaport Marina Hotel.
The project, known as “2
nd
+ PCH,” was to include 325 residential units, 191,000 square feet of
retail space, a hotel with 100 rooms, 21,000 square feet of restaurant space, a theater, a marine
science learning center, and nearly 1,500 parking spaces.
161
The complex was to be designed by
Studio One-Eleven Architects and carried out by developers Ratkovich Properties and
Development Services Group.
162
In this new development, buildings would be as high as twelve
stories and would include two six-story buildings. These new plans also called for an exemption
from or revision to SEADIP which would be far more extensive than the previously-requested
sixty foot height limit.
160
Joe Segura, “Public Input Sought on Zoning,” Long Beach Press Telegram, February 13, 2008, accessed
December 20, 2014. The City of Long Beach had attempted to conduct a SEADIP revision process internally while
the developer’s proposal was still under consideration, which would have increased building heights to allow for its
construction, but this approach faced strong public criticism for eliminating public input and commentary from
important organizations affected by implementation, including the Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust.
161
“Meeting on 2
nd
+ PCH Development Monday,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, November 10, 2009, accessed
December 20, 2014.
162
Joe Segura, “Shore Patrol: Seaside Plan Shines Light on Candidates’ Ties,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, March
18, 2010, accessed December 20, 2014. Both Studio One-Eleven Architects and Ratkovich Properties have worked
on notable adaptive reuse projects throughout the City of Long Beach. It should be noted that despite their prior
affiliations neither company expressed interest in rehabilitating or retaining portions of the Seaport Marina Hotel.
Ratkovich Properties is currently redeveloping the Southern California Edison building in Downtown Long Beach to
create the Edison Lofts. For more information on this project, see Chapter 2: Shared Interests between Heritage and
Environmental Conservation, pages 25-28.
55

Figure 3.15. Rendering of 2
nd
+ PCH Development as proposed in 2009. Rendering by Studio One-Eleven
Architects. Source: “2
nd
+ PCH,” Rios Clementi Hale Studios Website, http://www.rchstudios.com/2nd-pch/
(accessed March 20, 2015).
Shortly after the 2009 project was announced, both historic preservation and
environmental interests in Long Beach joined the conversation. The Long Beach Press-Telegram
interviewed local advocates about the Seaport Marina Hotel’s architecture and publicized
statements about the remaining potentially-historic character-defining features.
163
Shortly after
these interviews, the project seemed doomed a second time when the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) recommended the project be reduced in size by nearly fifty percent. The smaller
version of the development “…would reduce the density and lower the allowable height to no
more than three stories for most of the development and no more than six stories for a single
tower.”
164
Though less ambitious, this plan still would not conform to the current SEADIP height
limits. The EIR also outlined other negative aspects of the development including, “significant
traffic impacts” and “…impacts to the wetlands.”
165
The report concluded that the solution for
163
Segura, “Shore Patrol: Could Marina Hotel’s Past be Its Future?.”
164
Paul Eakins, “Report Says Long Beach Coastal Project Should be Cut in Half,” Long Beach Press-Telegram,
April 26 2010, accessed December 20, 2014.
165
Ibid.
56

the site with the best environmental outcome would a ‘no project’ alternative, which would
eliminate the proposed development.
166

Figure 3.16. Rendering of proposed 2
nd
+ PCH Development (second submittal). Source: James Brasuell, “Long
Beach Approves Slimmer Second + PCH Development,” Curbed: LA, November 18, 2011,
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/long_beach_approves_slimmer_secondpch_development_1.php (accessed
March 20, 2015).
Shortly after this evaluation, the Long Beach Press-Telegram publicized that the
proposed development was located in the Pacific Flyway zone, a path of travel for migratory
birds.
167
The twelve-story tower proposed at the time could contribute to a dangerous pathway
for traveling birds, of which a minimum of 97 million are estimated to be killed in the United
States each year due to tall glass buildings.
168

Following this backlash, the project developer restated its community benefits including a
theater for California State University, Long Beach. The developer stated that the EIR neglected
166
Ibid.
167
Joe Segura, “Shore Patrol: Developer’s EIR isn’t for the Birds,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, July 1 2010,
accessed December 20, 2014.
168
Ibid.
57

to take into account the ‘positive’ aesthetic effect of relieving the East Long Beach “community
[from] having to look at this hotel” (referencing the Seaport Marina Hotel’s state of neglect).
169

Contradicting opinions followed, with the University Park Estates Neighborhood Association
expressing concerns that the development would open the door to more high-rises in the
neighborhood, while the City’s hired research consultant declared that the project had support
“…among the highest levels of favorability…seen.”
170
These concerns about redevelopment
proved more prominent than those regarding the hotel’s appearance.

Figure 3.17. 2
nd
+ PCH proponents at Long Beach City Council meeting. Source: Second + PCH, “Scene from
Wednesday’s Planning Commission Hearing,” Facebook, October 11, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/113033166387/photos/pb.113033166387.-
2207520000.1426877511./10150409436331388/?type=3&theater (accessed March 1, 2015).
The City of Long Beach approved a revision for the project at City Council. Through a
series of meetings, the City determined the project could be allowed if it reduced the number of
169
Paul Eakins, “Developers Say Cutting Back on 2
nd
& PCH Development Would Kill Project,” Long Beach Press-
Telegram, April 27 2010, accessed December 20, 2014.
170
Joe Segura, “Long Beach Commission Set to Reassess Project,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, April 8 2011,
accessed December 20, 2014. ; Paul Eakins, “2
nd
+ PCH Hearing Thursday in Long Beach,” Long Beach Press-
Telegram, May 17 2011, accessed December 20, 2014.
58

residential units and decreased retail space by nearly 40,000 square feet.
171
It was at these
meetings that environmental advocates were approached by preservation groups working on the
project. Flora Chou, then Preservation Coordinator for the Los Angeles Conservancy, attended a
City Council meeting to speak on behalf of the Seaport Marina Hotel’s historical significance in
the Long Beach community. After hearing environmental advocates speak on behalf of the
wetlands, she approached their representatives regarding a shared interest in opposing the 2
nd
+
PCH development.
172

Long Beach Heritage, the Los Angeles Conservancy, and local environmental
organizations began working together to oppose the project. Following their partnership, a
significant crowd gathered to hear the Long Beach City Council declare a final ruling on the
development.
173
Denunciations of the proposal by reputable organizations and growing public
concern led the City Council to deny zoning changes to SEADIP which would have
accommodated the development.
174
Following the decision the developer announced they would
not attempt the project a third time, with a representative stating “There is no next. The project’s
done.”
175

The Seaport Marina Hotel has not been saved. The interests of both preservationists and
environmentalists remain at risk. Alliances between conservation groups did successfully create
an environment where demolition was not favorable. However, the project has merely been
delayed. The developer later returned with a final plea, requesting the City of Long Beach
reconsider exempting the project from SEADIP, saying “we believe very strongly that we’ve all
worked too hard and too long and had too much support from the community to allow this
project to die.”
176
His request was unacknowledged, but the formal revision process for the
Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) continued.
177

171
Joe Segura, “Revised 2
nd
+ PCH Approved,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, November 17 2011, accessed
December 20, 2014.
172
Flora Chou (LEED AP, Page & Turnbull), interview with Katelyn Rispoli, April 7 2014.
173
Eric Bradley, “Long Beach Council Rejects Second + PCH Project,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, December 20
2011, accessed December 20, 2014.
174
Adrian Glick Kudler, “Long Beach Council Kills Huge Second + PCH Mixed-Use Project,” Curbed: Los
Angeles, December 21 2011, accessed December 20, 2014.
175
Bradley, “Long Beach Council Rejects Second + PCH Project.”
176
“2
nd
+ PCH Project Back from the Dead,” Long Beach Post, January 12 2012, accessed December 20, 2014.
177
Eric Bradley, “Long Beach Council Discusses Timeline for Revising SEADIP Plan,” Long Beach Press-
Telegram, February 7 2012, accessed December 20, 2014.
59

Though the revision process may have been initiated because of the 2
nd
+ PCH
development, it was long overdue. The revision would give Long Beach “the ability to pursue
sustainability goals as a City while exploring quality developments, including the restoration of
the Los Cerritos Wetlands.”
178
Elizabeth Lambe, Executive Director of the Los Cerritos Wetland
Land Trust, stated that the policy was “utterly out of touch.”
179
She stated that “all stakeholders
in the area…should be vested in the success of replacing [the] zoning plan.”
180

Unfortunately, this is not the case. No preservation professionals have been chosen to
serve on the SEADIP revision committee.
181
The SEADIP revision process is expected to end in
2015. Until then, the owner of the Seaport Marina Hotel has continued to propose redevelopment
while making repairs to attract new business including the installation of a new roof, repair of
broken signage, and upgrades to the grounds and guest amenities in 2014.
182

178
Bob Foster, Mayor of the City of Long Beach at the time of publication, quoted in “Long Beach Slated to
Receive Over $1M in State Grants,” US Fed News Service, Including US State News, May 6 2012, accessed
December 20, 2014.
179
Eric Bradley, “Long Beach Council to Vote on Plan to Update Coastal Zoning,” Long Beach Press-Telegram,
May 10 2013, accessed December 20, 2014.
180
Bradley, “Long Beach Council to Vote on Plan to Update Coastal Zoning.”
181
Though the recruitment process for the SEADIP Advisory Committee was inclusive, no representative for the
local historic preservation community was chosen to participate. See footnote 45.
182
Seaport Marina Hotel Employee, telephone conversation with author, March 15, 2015.
60

Figure 3.18. Seaport Marina Hotel landscape improvements in progress. Source: Second + PCH, “Bringing the
Hotel Back to Respectable Conditions,” Facebook, March 9, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/113033166387/photos/pb.113033166387.-
2207520000.1426877511./10152348257711388/?type=3&theater (accessed March 1, 2015).
Plans for redevelopment of the site have continued to be submitted to the City of Long
Beach for consideration. The most recent proposal was submitted independently by the owner in
2013, and has not moved forward in any significant manner.
An annual student competition between the University of Southern California (USC)
Lusk and University of California, Los Angeles Ziman Centers for Real Estate prompted further
interest in the site. The 2013 competition asked students to prepare a redevelopment proposal for
the Seaport Marina Hotel. After a “grueling six week process…” the USC team was chosen as
the winner, designing a proposal titled the “Belmont Yards.” The proposal entails “replacing the
hotel with new retail, a permanent farmer’s market and a pedestrian bridge from the development
to the nearby marina.”
183
The concept also integrates “recycled shipping containers as a nod to
183
Andrew Edwards, “Long Beach’s Seaport Marina Hotel at Center of UCLA-USC Real Estate Competition,”
Long Beach Press-Telegram, November 23 2013, accessed December 20, 2014.
61

the importance of the shipping industry to Long Beach’s economy.”
184
The owner has since
revised the pending submittal, incorporating elements of the Belmont Yards project, and the
project has once again been put in motion.
185
The current proposed development calls for
complete demolition of the hotel and the construction of commercial buildings which comply
with SEADIP regulations.
186

Figure 3.19. Rendering of Belmont Yards proposal by USC students. Source: Bianca Barragan, “A Dream Vision
for Long Beach’s Failed 2
nd
+ PCH Site,” Curbed: LA, January 3, 2014, accessed March 5, 2014,
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/a_dream_vision_for_long_beachs_perpetually_failed_secondpch.php.
The collaborative conservation between preservation and environmental groups
surrounding the Seaport Marina Hotel encouraged the community to advocate against
demolition. Positions against the project were successful, but continuing the partnership has
184
Edwards, “Long Beach’s Seaport Marina Hotel at Center of UCLA-USC Real Estate Competition.” The
integration of shipping containers in the Belmont Yards design as an homage to Long Beach’s economic vein
demonstrates the distance constructed over the last fifteen years from Long Beach’s resonance as a Navy town. For
Sealey’s Seaport Marina Hotel to be replaced by containers symbolizing the destruction of yet another work he
contributed to greatly demonstrates the loss of this reputation.
185
Edwards, “Long Beach’s Seaport Marina Hotel at Center of UCLA-USC Real Estate Competition.”
186
Pat Malo, “Seaport Marina Hotel Demolition Plan Faces Foes: Defenders Voice Desire to Preserve Historic
Property at Second Street and PCH,” Orange County Register, March 28 2014, accessed December 20, 2014.
62

proved difficult. Elizabeth Lambe noted in an interview that the events surrounding the Seaport
Marina Hotel inspired her to collaborate with Long Beach Heritage once again to host a tour of
the hotel and its surrounding environmental resources.
187
This tour has not taken place and the
two groups are not currently working on any significant projects in partnership.
Though the opposition expressed by environmental and historic preservation advocates
did result in the dismissal of the 2006 and 2009 proposals for redevelopment, the success seen is
temporary. By continuing the relationships which were developed between these two sets of
advocates throughout the opposition, these two groups can further their success. The lack of
involvement from the historic preservation community in the revision of SEADIP is unfortunate.
If environmental and cultural heritage proponents in the Long Beach area move forward with a
collaborative approach, they can see even greater success than that seen in the instance of the
dismissed Seaport Marina redevelopment.

187
Elizabeth Lambe, interview.
63

Chapter 4
Uniting for Progress
Collaborative conservation policymaking forwards the missions of environmental and
cultural heritage advocates. It capitalizes on the strongest tactics used by both to achieve a more
effective outcome for each. When implemented at the federal and state levels, stronger, effective,
more efficient legislation results which is instrumental to both groups.
Collaborative Conservation – Federal Level
Implementation of collaborative conservation at the federal, or nationwide, level results
in policies that are difficult to alter. Because making adjustments to these policies is such a
significant task, they are revised much less often and as a result become outdated and difficult to
implement in a constantly-changing world of new technologies.
188
At the federal level,
collaborative conservation is embedded in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act. All require that federal agencies evaluate the environmental
impact of their proposed projects before proceeding with construction.
189

For these three policies, the environmental impact is extended to include the aesthetic and
cultural environment, extending protection to historic resources. Through NEPA, federal
agencies are required to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a “full-blown
assessment of affected resources, the nature of the impact, and alternatives that might alter those
impacts.”
190

The NHPA legislates collaborative conservation through various means. Section 106 of
the NHPA provides assistance in advocacy to both preservation and environmental advocates
because it requires for any project paid for with federal funds to undergo an environmental
188
National Historic Preservation Act (passed 1966) ; National Environmental Policy Act (passed 1970) ; California
Environmental Quality Act (passed 1970) ; City of Long Beach Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan
(passed 1977). For example, the NHPA has been amended nineteen times since its enactment with two major
revisions, NEPA has been amended four times with two major revisions, CEQA is required to be amended at
minimum every two years, and Long Beach’s SEADIP has been amended twelve times since its enactment with one
major revision. Examining the varying levels of policy revision demonstrates that policies at the state level are most
practically maintained, as federal legislation is too difficult to alter, and revision of policy in their jurisdiction is not
a priority or is too high-cost for local government.
189
Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” 51.
190
Ibid.
64

assessment “…to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building,
structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.”
191

The NHPA also supports collaboration with federal agencies in charge of preservation
such as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other agencies which relate to
environmental health.
192
These agencies work closely with the National Park Service, which
represents the direct tie between heritage and natural resources through its properties and actions.
The involvement of these agencies and other factors bring the often-local issue of historic
preservation to the federal level by covering conservation not limited by local or state
boundaries, including resources which could potentially qualify as World Heritage Sites.
193
The
act also creates an environment for public input in federal and other government-funded projects
by requiring an environmental assessment to determine the project’s impact on historic
resources.
194

Also at the national level, the National Heritage Area program managed by regional
offices of the National Park Service was created in the 1980s and creates park spaces that are
protected for their cultural value.
195
Known as heritage areas, these cultural resources promote
“interest in urban cultural and industrial resource protection, and, in some instances, a
convergence of interests between historic preservation and land conservation.”
196
This program
inspired creation of the National Coalition for Heritage Areas, a private organization which
advocates for federal legislation to further this collaborative cause.
197
The National Heritage
Area program leads as a strong example of a national collaborative conservation program.
Designated Heritage Areas are maintained by public-private partnerships between National
Heritage Area entities and organizations who serve the communities near the areas.
198
These
191
National Historic Preservation Act § 106 (passed 1966).
192
Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” 36. ; National Historic Preservation Act § 212(a) (passed 1966).
The National Historic Preservation Act states that properties listed in or eligible for the National Register for
Historic Places should be evaluated in partnership with committees such as the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
193
National Historic Preservation Act § 101 (2)(d).
194
National Historic Preservation Act § 106.
195
“What Are National Heritage Areas?,” National Park Service, accessed March 9, 2015,
http://www.nps.gov/heritageareas/FAQ/.
196
Charles E. Roe, “The Natural Environment,” chap. 7 in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-
First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: the University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 243.
197
Roe, “The Natural Environment,” 244. The National Coalition for Heritage Areas has been renamed the Alliance
for National Heritage Areas. The group is organized but has not yet experienced success in lobbying congress.
198
“What Are National Heritage Areas?.”
65

partnerships allow the National Parks Service to play a limited role, distributing matching federal
funds given by Congress to entities to ensure designated areas are kept in condition suitable for
use and enjoyment.
199
The existing National Heritage Areas in the Northeast Region alone
produce $5.4 billion annually in economic output, generate $602.7 million annually in taxes, and
support nearly 67,000 jobs.
200

In addition to the above historic preservation policies and programs, there are also
national environmental policies such as the Clean Air Act and regulatory agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency in place. In spite of their success and the success of the NHPA
and National Heritage Area Program, at times national policies can limit the actions that can be
taken at the regional level, as “national environmental policy often leaves state and local
governments without the flexibility and incentives to achieve environmental quality
objectives.”
201

Collaborative Conservation – State Level
Statewide collaborative conservation policies have demonstrated that both environmental
and heritage advocates can partner to create reliable legislation which can be revised to meet
changing needs. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) originally existed to protect
only environmental resources. It was not created with a collaborative conservation approach, but
rather was revised in November of 1998 to include language regarding cultural resources.
202

Several states have laws that are the equivalent to CEQA in their own jurisdiction, some of
which include language regarding historic resources similar to California.
203

Language in CEQA to address the protection of designed historic resources reinforces the
notion of heritage conservation in the environmental movement. The two fields have mutual
interest in protecting the surrounding environment to improve quality of life. The revised
language required environmental attorneys who work in advocacy and use CEQA to become
more knowledgeable about its application to historic resources. A statewide environmental
199
Ibid.
200
“National Heritage Areas: Sustaining Regional and Local Economies,” Alliance for National Heritage Areas,
accessed January 2, 2015, http://www.nationalheritageareas.us/.
201
Mazmezian and Kraft, “The Three Epochs,” 4.
202
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historic Resources, Technical Assistance Series #1
(Sacramento: California Office of Historic Preservation, May 23 2001).
203
See footnote 22.
66

policy succeeds in California because of that state’s openness to environmental regulation, the
law’s language allowing for resident involvement, and its delegation of responsibility for
implementation to local government entities.
204
CEQA supports public participation and local
government involvement in environmental health, creating a strong dynamic for collaboration.
Federal policies can be delegated to states for implementation. This demonstrates that the
creation of state offices is one of the most effective ways to provide technical assistance and
monitor compliance with broad regulations.
205
The NHPA encouraged a widespread state
historic preservation office system with designated historic preservation offices to coordinate
National Register of Historic Places nominations, state surveys, and applications for federal
funding from the Historic Preservation Fund.
206
This state-level implementation of a national law
provided a benefit for historic preservation as a field, and can do the same for environmental
policies which cover expansive areas.
Delegating responsibility for implementation to state governments creates opportunities
for collaboration between regulatory agencies. With the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Act came $151 billion of funding available for preservation projects, but obtaining funds from
the reserve largely depended on how the state historic preservation offices collaborated with the
Department of Transportation. Through the partnerships which developed, “state-level
partners… were able to channel enhancement funds into historic buildings and landscape
improvements in historic districts and along historic roadways.”
207

At the state level, policymaking is more easily influenced than at the federal level.
Environmental and heritage conservation advocates can request adjustments to existing policies,
and request new policies at the state level with a stronger likelihood of success.

204
“A Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),” California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
accessed January 13, 2015, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Purpose. See footnote 21 for a list of
similar policies nationwide which share successful attributes and contain other features specific to regional natural
resources.
205
Elizabeth A. Lyon and David L.S. Brook, “The States: The Backbone of Preservation,” chap. 3 in Stipe, A Richer
Heritage, 81.
206
Lyon and Brook, “The States: The Backbone of Preservation,” 81-84.
207
Lyon and Brook, “The States: The Backbone of Preservation,” 98.
67

Collaborative Conservation – Local Level
In the case of the Seaport Marina Hotel, the flexibility of local policy, often a benefit,
was taken advantage of. With the dismissal of their proposal due to SEADIP restrictions, the
project developer approached the Long Beach City Council with the concept that their project, a
possible economic engine for Southeast Long Beach, was denied due to an outdated and overly-
strict piece of legislation. Interest in providing a second opportunity prompted the City of Long
Beach to carry out an extensive revision of the policy to be more accommodating towards future
projects. Though local policies are effective and more easily implemented, they are also easy to
alter. Because of the need to defend such important resources, collaborative conservation policies
protecting the environment and cultural heritage are best implemented at the state level.
Challenges Faced by Collaborative Conservation
There are several reasons why collaborative conservation policymaking has not yet
become the dominant approach. To begin, environmental advocates and historic preservationists
have not always agreed in their approach to conserve resources.
208
In addition to disagreement,
the very nature of the fields can have a contradictory approach.
Environmental regulation is often transboundary, affecting communities beyond a
singular jurisdiction.
209
In addition to transboundary resources, environmental regulation
monitors broad regional or global challenges such as air and water pollution. The Clean Air Act
of the 1970s regulates emissions in industry and vehicles, and discusses transboundary
implications of air pollution throughout the entire United States.
210
Since regulation for
208
Eric Zahn, interview.
The Colorado Lagoon in Long Beach was originally connected to the greater Los Cerritos Wetlands but
was filled by the City of Long Beach to create Marina Vista Park. Filling the lagoon eliminated natural tide and
filtration systems within the body of water. By the 1970s, storm drains entering into the lagoon had made it
unusable. Tidal Influence worked with the City of Long Beach and the Friends of Colorado Lagoon to permanently
remove the storm drains, restore the ecological systems which once thrived in Colorado Lagoon, and return the
lagoon to a state of recreational use.
Since 2009, the lagoon has once again become a recreational area but water flow to the lagoon is still
restricted. These groups have proposed removing the 1960s park infill. Though this action would restore a natural
resource and improve the environmental health of the community, the plan is strongly opposed by residents and
advocates for historic preservation who recognize the role Marina Vista Park has played in the surrounding
neighborhood’s historic character.
209
Vaughn, Environmental Politics, 237. The Los Cerritos Wetlands in Long Beach demonstrate a transboundary
resource in that they border both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. They impact the health of the greater ecosystem
for the city of Long Beach, where they are located, and the City of Seal Beach, which they neighbor.
210
Ibid., 223.
68

transboundary resources and challenges must be broad, some environmental policies need to be
made at the federal level. Preservation policy is more often local.
211
Historic cultural resources
may hold national significance, but first and foremost they are constructed in and impact the
communities where they are located.
212
As a nationally-significant historic resource, Roosevelt
Naval Base was still of more immediate concern in its locale, where activists had the most
motive and greatest investment in carrying out conservation efforts.
213
Varying levels of
application for environmental and historic preservation policy have not supported many
opportunities for collaboration to create new or revise existing policies in this field.
Another obstacle lies in the intent behind many of the first national environmental and
historic preservation policies, which did not successfully communicate the strong shared interests
between the fields of environmentalism and historic preservation and, as consequence, were
rarely multidisciplinary. According to Mazmanian and Kraft,
In the flurry of action by the federal government to develop policies for specific air,
water, and other pollutants…no strategies or policies were developed for working across
policy domains, from air and water pollution to energy…construction, transportation,
land use, and urban planning, in a more comprehensive approach that would
simultaneously provide pollution reduction while fostering economic development and
quality of life (The Three Epochs, 4).
How these Policies are Implemented
In order to find the best form of application, collaborative conservation policies should be
proposed to state and federal legislators by members of the public.
214
Residents and
211
Primary tools for preservation at the federal level include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits, which are effective but in some cases are restricted in their application. For
details on these and other tools in preservation, please see Table 4.1.
212
Some historic designed resources, such as vessels, are not subject to location. The Queen Mary, for example, is
currently docked in Long Beach but its location could change in the future.
213
Advocates against demolition in the surrounding community in addition to the Audubon Society included Long
Beach Heritage, local military veterans, and the Sierra Club.
214
Mina Kim, Forum with Michael Krasny: National Public Radio, podcast audio, February 13, 2015,
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201502130900. In order for concerned residents to voice their opinion, these
residents must feel they are not only allowed to do so, but that it will be heard. A lack of knowledge regarding the
legislative process and feeling of insignificance have deterred young voters from participating in local and state
elections. Building knowledge about the legislative process and educating the public about their ability to have an
impact will better enable the collaborative coalitions that can be formed to lobby Congress for joint-conservation
policy.
69

organizations who have an interest in new policy for environmental or heritage conservation can
gather to form a coalition capable of lobbying members of Congress. Advocates for both fields
should participate to ensure the resulting policies represent the interests and methodologies of
both fields. Politicians are voted into office to represent the interests of their constituents, and
they are motivated by reputation and potential for reelection, among other factors.
215
Coalitions
formed by concerned residents can schedule meetings with their elected officials to encourage
them to introduce legislation and create new piece of public policy.
216
In some cases, the
coalition may even draft legislative language.
217
For this reason, it is the responsibility of
environmental and cultural heritage advocates to ensure the language of the proposed bill is
effective and represents the intentions of both groups.
In order to form coalitions capable of lobbying Congress, environmental and historic
preservation groups must first form partnerships. This will involve strengthening the association
between environmentalism and historic preservation as practices. Groups like We Are the Next,
a nonprofit organization working in Los Angeles County, have begun to build this association.
218

We Are the Next is working with community groups interested in both heritage and
environmental conservation, and organizing collaborative events for all of their partners to allow
the sharing of ideas and current projects.
219
In addition, the organization works with youth to
educate about the environmental investment that lies in their surrounding built environment.
Building this association with future generations ensures that the connection between
environmental health and historic preservation are more widely known.
220

215
Michigan State University, “How Governmental Policy is Made,” Best Practice Briefs 34 (November 2005): 1,
http://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief34.pdf. Elected officials are influenced by votes, financial contributions,
ideas that lead to good results for constituents and publicity, and feedback from their constituents. Each of these
variables plays a role in their ability to be elected or re-elected.
216
“Legislative Process,” California State Senate, accessed March 8, 2015, http://senate.ca.gov/legislativeprocess.
217
Michigan State University, “How Governmental Policy is Made,” 1.
218
Katelyn Rispoli, author of this thesis, is the founder and Executive Director of We Are the Next.
219
“About,” We Are the Next, 2015, accessed March 10, 2015, www.wearethenext.org/about.
220
“Education,” We Are the Next, 2015, accessed March 10, 2015, www.wearethenext.org/education.
70

Quality of Life in Collaborative Conservation
Table 4.1 can be used to identify commonalities between existing environmental and
historic preservation policies.
221
These policies share an emphasis on health and a focus on
citizen participation and quality of life. The first priority of environmental groups is often water
and air quality, healthy ecosystems, and access to and maintenance of outdoor recreation areas.
In addition, environmental groups protect natural resources for their ecological importance, their
contribution to a healthy environment, and their recreational and cultural value. From a
preservationist perspective, good quality of life is something that can be achieved through
cultural enrichment, a sustainable and environmentally-sound built environment, and civic
engagement through cultural relevance. These values are emphasized in collaborative
conservation programs like the National Heritage Area program, where visitors are able to enjoy
scenic views or conserved natural areas and recreation facilities together to create an experience.
Both environmental and preservation policies independently prioritize quality of life, but this
commonality is often overlooked as these policies are used by one group or the other.
Understanding the key features of environmental and historic preservation policies can
lead to the creation of successful collaborative conservation policy. Collaborative conservation
policies can be formed and implemented to capitalize on and strengthen these beneficial traits.
Table 4.1 demonstrates the predominant characteristics of current historic preservation policies
in the United States. Quality of life concerns shared by the two fields are shown to include
culture, health, and environment. Culture is the most dominant value of existing historic
preservation policies at all levels. These policies include Native American cultural artifacts and
heritage tourism, among other values. Table 4.1 also demonstrates that the second-most
prioritized quality of life value in historic preservation policy is health. These policies consider
the cleanliness of outdoor recreation areas for tourism and recreation purposes and archeological
artifacts. They also ensure that transportation in historic corridors and recreation areas is
available to those who use it, and that it is clean, safe, and attractive.
221
Characteristics of various historic preservation and environmental policies and programs identified on pages 71
and 74 are taken from Table 4.1 unless otherwise noted.
71

Quality of Life Concerns
Policy Culture Health Environment Financial Component Implementation
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
Environmental / State / 1970
Amended to include
language regarding cultural
historic resources
Ensures that the natural
environment remains
"healthful and pleasing to
the senses" §2100
Projects carried out with
government funds must
investigate the impact on the
environment
Directs States to request funds for
environmental rehabilitation
through their annual budgets
Allows agencies to determine
their own methods of
enforcement for violation or
noncompliance§15097.(e)5
Clean Air Act
Environmental / National / 1970

Dictates national standards
for activities which impact
human health
Requires polluters to meet
Standards for air pollution
caused by human activity
Funds research to determine
sources and extent of air
pollution
Monitors participants
through the Environmental
Protection Agency to
ensure compliance
The Coastal Act
Environmental / State / 1972

Developers must obtain
permits that conform to local
coastal protection plans
Laid groundwork for the
California Coastal
Commission
Federal Rehabilitation Tax
Credits
Historic Preservation /
National / 1976
Increases heritage tourism,
regrows historic commercial
and residential areas, and
increases value of
rehabilitated properties

Encourages private investment in
historic resources, stimulating
opportunities for preservation
Sets standards for acceptable
treatment of properties on the
National Register and reviews
completed rehabilitation
projects to ensure proper
treatment
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
Environmental / National / 1970
Requires analysis of
proposed federal projects on
historic cultural resources

Requires an environmental
assessment to evaluate the
environmental effects of
proposed federal projects
NEPA task force created in
2002 to review current
practices and procedures.
National Heritage Area Program
Historic Preservation /
National / 1980s
Requires analysis of the
effects of proposed
government projects on
historic resources
Aims to create clean,
outdoor recreation areas
suitable for human
activity

72
National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA)
Historic Preservation /
National / 1966
Expanded the National
Register of Historic Places,
providing significant
expansion of historic
preservation as a practice.
Helped to create a network of
state historic preservation
offices
Authorizes Historic Preservation
Fund which assists historic
surveys, historic preservation
plans, state offices, grants for
Certified Local Governments,
National Register processes, and
tax incentive reviews
Designates State Historic
Preservation Offices which
oversee projects involving
historic cultural resources
addition of new historic
designations on behalf of
the federal government
Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act
Transportation / National / 1966
Requires the department to
determine there is no
alternative to proposed
projects with a significant
effect on historic resources
Requires the department to
prove there is no alternative to
proposed projects that have a
significant environmental
impact
Applies for projects that receive
federal financial assistance for
construction or/repairs to
highways, mass transit, and
airports

Southeast Area Development and
Improvement Plan (SEADIP)
Environmental / Local / 1977

Maintains public access to
waterways, canals, and views
while ensuring that new
developments are consistent
with neighborhood character
Maintains public access to
beaches and water-side
bicycle and walking trails
throughout the SEADIP
territory
Provide guidelines for
development in and around
wetlands and other natural
areas in the territory
Requires that developers
interested in filling wetlands fund
the creation or restoration of other
permanent wetlands
The plan is implemented by
the City of Long Beach
through routine permit
approval, and at the hand of
City Council as necessary
Transportation Equity Act for
the Twenty-first Century
Historic Preservation /
National / 1998
Allows for preservation and
rehabilitation of cultural
resources if affiliated with
transportation
Aims to encourage health
for travelers in recreation
areas commuting by
public transit
Includes preserving scenic
areas and incorporates biking
trails in natural landscapes
Allocates $3.6 billion of
federal budget funds to enhancing
'quality of life' in transportation
areas

Water Pollution Control Act
Environmental / National / 1956
Authorizes preparation
and adoption of programs
for eliminating or
reducing pollution
Incentivizes states to write
quality standards in order to
meet goals for pollution
reduction

Funds studies, research, and
sewage treatments
Supports collaboration
with other agencies and
industry stakeholders

Table 4.1. Primary Characteristics of Mentioned Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies. Table created by author. See Figure List for source
information.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): California Environmental Quality Act (passed 1970). ; Clean Air Act: Benjamin Kline, First Along the
River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement, 104-115. ; The Coastal Act: California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it Does, 2-3. ;
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits: John M. Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” chap. 2 in A Richer Heritage, ed. Robert E. Stipe, 59-63. ; National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): National Environmental Policy Act (passed 1970) ; Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” 51. ; Jacqueline Vaughn,
Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions, 15, 205. ; National Heritage Area Program: Charles E. Roe, “The Natural Environment,” chap. 7 in
A Richer Heritage, 243. ; National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): National Historic Preservation Act (passed 1966). ; Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act: Fowler, “The Federal Preservation Program,” 53-54. ; Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP): City of Long
Beach Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (passed 1977). ; Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-First Century: Diane Lea, “America’s
Preservation Ethos,” introduction to A Richer Heritage, 18-19. ; Water Pollution Control Act: Water Pollution Control Act (passed 1956).

73
Environmental policies provide direction to protect natural and cultural areas, while
historic preservation policies give information and provide resources for those looking to protect
cultural assets. The contrast in implementation between the two is seen in their language.
Environmental policies do not assume compliance. Rather, they contain participatory elements.
Environmental policies use compliance measurement techniques like incentives,
requirements to participate in programs, requirements to obtain permits, and requirements for
plans to conform to the preferences of coastal jurisdictions.
222
The stronger the environmental
policy, the stronger the results. A study conducted by Bank of America in 1993 discovered that
“…states with strong environmental policies have enjoyed more economic growth than those
with weak ones. Over…15 years, states with strong environmental standards experienced an
average economic growth rate of 2.60 percent per year, states with moderate standards 2.29
percent per year, and states with weak standards 2.15 percent.”
223

Historic preservation policies are less direct in their language and have a stronger focus
on education than regulation and compliance. Tangible results from these policies are usually
seen in the creation of oversight boards, committees, or agencies which provide resources for
those looking to cultivate cultural value in applicable regions. Most existing preservation policies
do not provide financial incentives to participants, consequences to violators, or measures of
progress that agencies are expected to meet over time.
The instructional language in environmental regulation and the awareness through
historic preservation policy can be unified through collaboration involving professionals from
both fields to draft bills. Coalitions created to serve these partnerships can propose new
collaborative conservation policies which accomplish mutual goals. By capturing the strongest
elements of these kinds of laws as they exist now, a new approach to these policies can create
clear expectations for care and compliance of natural and designed environments.
Collaborative Conservation without Policy
Until these new policies can be created, collaborative conservation proponents may see
the need to work around the law by taking independent action to protect their resources.
222
Policies like these include the Water Pollution Control Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act,
and the Coastal Act. See Table 4.1 for additional language and policy examples.
223
Howe, Balancing Nature and Commerce, 12.
74

Advocates can find alternative measures of collaborative conservation to protect historic and
natural resources.
In South Carolina, the Horry County Board of Architectural Review began their
alternative preservation program known as the Patriot Tree Project in 2013.
224
Prior to its
creation, increased development and road improvements were destroying historic live oak trees
which for centuries have defined the landscape of Horry County. The Board of Architectural
Review had a vested interest in preventing their further destruction. Unfortunately, the trees were
not subject to the region’s applicable zoning ordinances, which created an obstacle to their
preservation.

Figure 4.2. Live oak trees dedicated through the Patriot Tree Project. Source: The State: South Carolina’s
Homepage. http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/23/3223908_horry-county-patriot-tree-project.html?rh=1.
The Horry County Board of Architectural Review hoped to prevent further destruction of
the historic live oak trees. The Board partnered with the Yaupon Garden Club and the Horry
224
Adam Emrick (Former Senior Planner, Horry County Board of Architectural Review in Horry County, South
Carolina), interview with Katelyn Rispoli, January 30, 2015.
75

County Historical Society to begin the Patriot Tree Project.
225
With the Patriot Tree Project, the
Horry County Board of Architectural Review identifies historic live oak trees within county
boundaries and associates them with the memory of fallen soldiers in the American Civil War
born or raised in Horry County. The Board of Architectural Review sends notices to property
owners informing them that a tree on their land has been declared a Patriot Tree. Owners are
provided with a biography of the fallen soldier, information about the program, and information
about the contribution by live oak trees to the historic character of the County.
226

The Patriot Tree Project has been well-received. Its low-cost implementation has allowed
the program to continue in Horry County.
227
The project is a great example of a community with
few legal avenues for conservation making use of collaborative conservation to build a more
favorable attitude towards historic resources. In this case the resources were the live oak trees
which were not protected by the local zoning ordinance, and as a consequence faced destruction.
The County Board implemented the Patriot Tree Project to build civic value in historic resources,
and as a result removals of historic live oak trees decreased in number. The project is considered
a success as it raised awareness of these historic resources, decreased the number of tree
removals, and was implemented for a low cost.
228

Similarly, the Bartow Pell Mansion Museum in Pelham Bay Park, New York has
bypassed local regulation to protect the character of the historic house museum. Their
collaborative conservation involves partnerships between the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, the
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and local and national environmental
groups.
The Bartow Pell Mansion Museum is located within Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx. The
home is located within the expansive lands of the park and is surrounded by wildlife and
vegetation. The house was designed around its valuable view of Pelham Bay, a character-
defining feature. In the late 1880s, the New York City Parks Department purchased the land
225
Adam Emrick, interview. The Patriot Tree Project in Horry County, South Carolina was based on the Living
Legacy Project in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Living Legacy Project sponsors the planting of trees in memory of
fallen Civil War soldiers.
226
Adam Emrick, “Horry County Board of Architectural Review Patriot Tree Program” (lecture, National Trust for
Historic Preservation Conference, Savannah, GA, November 14, 2014).
227
Adam Emrick, interview.
228
Adam Emerick, interview.
76

surrounding the house to create Pelham Bay Park, and because of the high cost of the land there
was little financial reserve for maintenance.
229
In addition, a Naturalist perspective has risen in
the Pelham Bay community which promotes the notion of organic vegetation and as little human
interference as possible in the landscape.
230
The combined forces of minimal maintenance and
this Naturalist perspective resulted in a landscape overtaken with invasive species, overgrowth of
Black Locust Trees, and the loss of the original view from the Bartow-Pell Mansion’s upper
story.
231

In 2010, a local volunteer with the Sierra Club approached Ellen Bruzelius, Executive
Director of the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum with a proposal to do a volunteer landscape retreat
at the site. The Museum was eager to participate, and since then has successfully hosted five
years of retreats in partnership with the Sierra Club. Each year, volunteers from around the
country pay a fee to come to New York and stay in a local hostel.
232
The City Parks Department
contributes by providing transportation for volunteers to and from the museum each day, and by
supervising volunteer work. Volunteers spend one week removing overgrown vegetation on the
Park grounds, as well as unwanted trees with on-site permission from Parks Department
employees.
This has absolutely made it easier. The Parks Department is tight on funds, and… they do
not have the resources to do this kind of work. They have some partnerships [with tree-
planting organizations] but… for us we do not want to be planting more trees, we want to
be restoring the historic view shed. There is no question that… the partnerships with the
Sierra Club and New York Cares have made a huge difference.
233

229
Ellen Bruzelius (Executive Director, Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum), interview with Katelyn Rispoli, January 26
2015
230
Ibid.
231
Ibid.
232
“Our Story,” New York Cares, accessed March 15, 2015, https://www.newyorkcares.org/our-story/. These
volunteers are a combination of volunteers from the Sierra Club and New York Cares, a city-wide nonprofit
organization which provides volunteers to other nonprofits, city agencies, and public schools to assist them in their
charitable efforts.
233
Ellen Bruzelius, interview.
77

Figure 4.3. Tree removal volunteers at the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum. Photograph courtesy of Ellen Bruzelius,
Executive Director, Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum.
With Parks Department staff on site supervising Sierra Club volunteers, the Bartow-Pell
Mansion Museum has been able to gain authorization to remove overgrown and unnecessary
trees in the view shed. The state of New York has stringent tree removal requirements. This
obstacle stood in the way of the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum taking steps to restore the historic
view shed until the partnership with the Sierra Club was established. Coupled with the natural
destruction of several trees by 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, the historic view of Pelham Bay has
been restored at the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum.
234
These success stories demonstrate that
there are alternative means of accomplishing preservation goals even when restrictive regulations
are in place.
234
Ibid.
78

Figure 4.4. Restored garden of the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum with thinned trees, Pelham Bay visible in rear.
Photograph courtesy of Ellen Bruzelius.
These case studies, including the previously discussed Roosevelt Naval Base and Seaport
Marina Hotel demonstrate some results of collaborative conservation. Major barriers to
employing partnerships, however, are still in place. Historic preservation and environmental
advocates rarely maintain open lines of communication. To overcome the distance grown
between the two professions, activists must first reach out to potential partners.
Horry County’s Board of Architectural Review reached out to their local nature and
environmental organizations in an effort to raise awareness of the historically-significant live oak
trees in their community. Similarly, the Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum was approached by local
volunteers with the Sierra Club to help manage invasive species on their grounds. The
partnerships resulted in success for both agencies and a lasting recognition of the results from
those partnerships. These can be considered demonstrations for success and guidelines for
initiating contact between organizations interested in conservation.
The partnerships required to ignite the process of creating collaborative conservation
policy are already forming. Those established to protect Roosevelt Naval Base and the Seaport
79

Marina Hotel resulted in positive outcomes for each group’s respective interest on some scale. In
examining the examples described in Chapter 3, it is clear that environmental and heritage
conservation proponents are working together and achieving results.
235
Capitalizing on
opportunities to revise or establish new policies after partnerships are established can forward
collaborative conservation, and create a more successful legislative future for both interests. The
case studies discussed in this thesis have demonstrated that collaboration between environmental
and heritage advocates to protect natural and designed resources can result in success, but
furthering this collaboration towards the creation of effective policies provides an optimal
outcome for both stakeholders.

235
The partnerships in these instances could have advanced collaborative conservation by progressing to the level of
policy revision or drafting. The SEADIP revision process which followed the 2
nd
+ PCH proposal in Long Beach
created a natural opportunity for progression, but was not taken advantage of. Historic Preservation advocates in the
region were not included in the final advisory committee chosen to carry out the process. See footnote 45.
80

Conclusion
The environmental movement in itself has become a piece of California’s history, and
throughout the last fifty years some natural resources have become designated historic
landmarks.
236
These places qualify for stronger protection, and are just one demonstration of
how these two approaches to conservation combined can be more powerful than when enacted
individually.
237
The now-established connection between environmental sustainability and
historic preservation provides a strong argument to rejuvenate the political atmosphere
surrounding conservation and create new collaborative conservation policies. Through these
policies the interests of both fields would be served with a greater emphasis on creating a better
quality of life than that in existing environmental and historic preservation policies.
To further the concept of collaborative conservation, additional research is needed.
Expanding this concept on the East Coast, where the similarities between these two disciplines
are often less acknowledged, can provide insight to implementing this approach in other states
and territories. In addition, analyzing the relationships between these two fields as they are
practiced is critical to moving forward with a partnership dynamic. In further study, a
collaborative event or conference could be organized to encourage communication between
practicing environmental and historic preservation professionals, followed up by continued
research on partnerships established and maintained at such an event. Lastly, understanding the
perception of these issues from the perspective of the typical voter is key in moving forward with
collaborative conservation policy. If these policies are ever to be placed on a ballot, it is
important to understand who would be approving them, whether or not they are already familiar
with the subjects, and how likely they are to endorse both environmentalism and historic
preservation practices.
Further research is also needed to audit existing environmental and historic preservation
policies at the state level throughout the country. Researchers should identify opportunities for
236
Roe, “The Natural Environment,” 223-251.
237
Office of the Press Secretary, “President Obama Designates San Gabriel Mountains National Monument,” The
White House, October 10, 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/10/president-obama-
designates-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument. On October 10, 2014, over 346,000 acres of the San Gabriel
Mountains were designated by President Obama as the San Gabriel National Monument under the Antiquities Act.
The emphasis on the mountains’ historic significance ensures the region will be protected from residential sprawl
and development interfering with both its ecological health and aesthetic value.
81

collaboration which already existing within the language of these policies, and investigate how a
collaborative approach to policy revision could further the intent of these laws and benefit like-
minded groups.
Proponents in heritage and environmental conservation have achieved limited success
through collaboration. Preservationists fighting for Roosevelt Naval Base received a financial
settlement to fund the preservation of their city’s other historic cultural resources, while
environmentalists achieved the sustainable relocation of a Black Night Heron colony. In their
efforts to protect the Seaport Marina Hotel, preservation and environmental advocates
successfully achieved the dismissal of a destructive development proposal for the site. Even
though collaboration occurred to protect these resources, it was not in the form of permanent
partnerships and did not result in long-term success. The groups were unable to achieve their
goals of protecting the Navy base and forming a sustainable and heritage-focused plan for the
hotel.
Regardless, these partnerships remain an example of collaboration between these two
communities. If groups continue to partner as they have done in Long Beach and in communities
like Horry County, South Carolina, and New York City, collaboration can continue and grow. If
environmental and heritage conservation supporters capitalize on budding partnerships to form
collaborative coalitions capable of lobbying Congress, these groups can participate in the
drafting and review process for bills proposed for implementation at the state level. As a result,
new collaborative conservation policies that embody this partnership in their language and
provide opportunities for successes statewide can be implemented. This legislation will build
upon the strongest characteristics and values of existing laws, including an improved quality of
life either through a healthier environment or a culturally-rich community. Because of its dual-
perspective, collaborative conservation policy will create numerous opportunities for
environmental and heritage conservation advocates to work together.
Collaborative conservation policymaking embodies the values of its advocates by
improving environmental conditions, defending natural resources, and protecting cultural
heritage. This approach to crafting new public policy at the state level will bring greater success
for both heritage and environmental conservationists. These policies will create a political
82

climate where proponents of these like-minded fields can move forward towards achieving
greater protection for their natural and cultural landscapes.

83

Bibliography
Alanen, Arnold R. and Robert Z. Melnick, eds. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. The
___Johns Hopkins University Press: London, 2000.
Altshuler, Alan A., José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, and Arnold M. Howitt. Regulation for Revenue: The
___political Economy of Land Use Exactions. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution / the
___Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1993.
“Architect for the Wealthy.” Ebony 5, no. 10 (August 1950).
Beaumont, Constance E. “The Critical Need for a Sensitive – and Sensible – National
___Transportation Policy.” National Trust for Historic Preservation ForumJournal (Fall 2012).
Bloszies, Charles. Old Buildings, New Designs: Architectural Transformations. Princeton
___Architectural Press: New York, 2012.
California Coastal Commission. “California Coastal Commission: Why it Exists and What it
___Does.” California Coastal Commission, 2003.
———. “Summary of LCP Program Activity in FY 2012-2013.” November 25, 2013.
California Office of Historic Preservation. “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to
___the California Historic Resource Status Codes and Historic Resources Inventory Directory.”
___California State Parks. November 2004.
———. “Technical Assistance Series #1: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
___Historic Resources.” California Department of Parks and Recreation. May 23 2001.
California State University, Long Beach. Paul Revere Williams: A Legend in Architecture, DVD.
___Long Beach, CA: Long Beach Navy Memorial Heritage Association, 2007.
Carroon, jean. Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
___Hoboken, 2010.
Cole, Alexandra C., Fermina B. Murray, and William B. Dewey. Historic American Building
___Survey: Roosevelt Base (Naval Station Long Beach). Santa Barbara, United States Navy,
___1996.
Crouch, S., C. Paquette, and D. Vilas. “Relocation of a Large Black-Crowned Night Heron
___Colony in Southern California.” Waterbirds 25, no. 4 (2002).
Eckstein, Barbara and James A. Throgmorton, eds. Story and Sustainability: Planning, Practice,
___and Possibility for American Cities. The MIT Press: Cambridge, 2003.
Elefante, Carl. “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built.” National Trust for
___Historic Preservation ForumJournal 21, no. 4 (Fall 2012).
Francaviglia, Richard V. Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town
___America. University of Iowa Press: Iowa City, 1996.
Frumkin, Howard, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Jackson. Urban Sprawl and Public Health:
___Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities. Island Press: Washington,
___D.C., 2004.
Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. The MIT Press:
___Cambridge, 1995.

84

Henderson, Wesley Howard. “Two Case Studies of African American Architects’ Careers in Los
___Angeles, 1890-1945: Paul R. Williams, FAIA and James H. Garrott, AIA.” PhD diss.,
___University of California, Los Angeles, 1992. ProQuest (303983391).
Howe, Jim, Ed McMahon and Luther Propst. Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway
___Communities. Island Press: Washington, D.C., 1997.
Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement (4
th

___Edition). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: Lanham, 2011.
Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Towards Sustainable Communities: Transition
___and Transformations in Environmental Policy (2
nd
edition). Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009.
Mirovitskaya, Natalia and William Ascher. Guide to Sustainable Development and
___Environmental Policy. Duke University Press: Durham, 2001.
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Green Lab, Impresa, Inc., Gehl Studio,
___State of Place, and Basemap. Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring How the Character of
___Buildings and Blocks Influences Urban Vitality. May 2014.
PCR Services Corporation and the City of Long Beach. 2
nd
+ PCH Development Recirculated
___Draft Environmental Impact Report. March 2011.
Rypkema, Donovan. “Economics and Historic Preservation.” National Trust for Historic
___Preservation ForumJournal 27, no. 1 (Fall 2012).
Shull, Caroll. “The Future of the National Register.” National Trust for Historic Preservation
___ForumJournal 27, no. 1 (Fall 2012).
Simon, William H. The Community Economic Development Movement: Law, Business, and the
___New Social Policy. Duke University Press: Durham, 2001.
Stipe, Robert E., Ed. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. The
___University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 2003.
SWCA Environmental Consultants. Built Environment Evaluation Report for Properties on
___Terminal Island, Port of Los Angeles, City and County of Los Angeles, California. December
___2011.
Tickner, Joel A., Ed. Precaution: Environmental Science and Preventative Public Policy. Island
___Press: Washington, D.C., 2003.
Van Seters, Paul. “Magnificent Places: Public Efforts to Protect Natural Resources.” PhD diss.,
___University of California, Berkeley, 1989. ProQuest (303766432).
Vaughn, Jacqueline. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions (6
th
edition).
___Wadsworth, Cengage Learning: Australia, 2011.
Wolinsky-Nahmias, Yael, ed. Changing Climate Politics: U.S. Policies and Civic Action. Sage
___Publications: London with CQ Press: Thousand Oaks, 2015.
85

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Collaborative conservation is the symbiotic partnership between environmental conservation and heritage conservation, combining the most successful characteristics of both to improve human quality of life. This thesis evaluates the relationship between the two practices in California since the 1960s and identifies their common interests as disciplines. The demolished Roosevelt Naval Base and temporarily rescued Seaport Marina Hotel in Long Beach serve as case studies to examine the crossovers and opportunities in this approach. Discovering the relationship between these interests, understanding pitfalls of current legislation, and developing a course of action to pursue this new approach to policymaking will result in more effective tools for advocates of both environmental and heritage conservation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

PDF

Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley

PDF

The ambivalence of conserving Busan’s colonial heritage

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

Lessons from Little Saigon: heritage conservation and ethnic enclaves in Orange County

PDF

The tent, camel, and coffee: safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage of the Rum Village Bedouins

PDF

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

Legacy business program implementation in American urban immigrant neighborhoods: a case study of Little Tokyo and Chinatown, Los Angeles

PDF

"It's important to remember what started it": conserving sites and stories of racial violence in Los Angeles, 1943-1992

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

Conservation 'on the natch': maintenance and remembrance at the Alcoholism Center for Women

PDF

Gaining a foothold: conserving Los Angeles' queer Eden(dale)

PDF

Scanning using a smart phone for heritage conservation: a case study using the Reunion House

Asset Metadata

Creator Rispoli, Katelyn M. (author)

Core Title Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 04/13/2015

Defense Date 04/13/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 2nd PCH,architectural history,Architecture,Bartow Pell Mansion Museum,collaborative conservation,Edgewater Inn,environmental conservation,Googie style,Heritage Conservation,Historic Preservation,History,international style,Long Beach,Long Beach Heritage,OAI-PMH Harvest,Patriot Tree Project,Paul Williams,policy,Port of Long Beach,Quality of life,Roosevelt Naval Base,Roy Sealey,Seaport Marina Hotel,sustainability

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Carstens, Douglas (committee member), Platt, Jay (committee member)

Creator Email katie@wearethenext.org,rispoli@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-545299

Unique identifier UC11297881

Identifier etd-RispoliKat-3280.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-545299 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RispoliKat-3280.pdf

Dmrecord 545299

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rispoli, Katelyn M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA