Conserving historic commercial signs in Hollywood, California

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

CONSERVING HISTORIC COMMERCIAL SIGNS
IN HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA

by

Lannette Marie Schwartz

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Lannette Marie Schwartz
ii

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Robert W. Nudelman. I met Mr. Nudelman
during the application process for Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument No. 846. This
Moderne residential dwelling is now listed as the B.A.G. Fuller House, and it is also my home.
His untiring efforts to preserve and conserve Hollywood’s historic resources were recognized by
many, and he was dubbed the “Conscience of Hollywood” by the Los Angeles Times in his 2008
obituary. Many people felt an enormous loss. I was at his memorial service when it became clear
to me, that it would take many advocates and professionals to replace this one man’s knowledge
and tireless conservation efforts in Hollywood. He was a leader and great steward of
Hollywood’s historic resources. I am now one of many who are attempting to pick up where
Robert unexpectedly left off. Thank you Robert for inspiring me to become a better steward.
iii

Acknowledgements
The following individuals provided essential feedback during the formulation of this
thesis. Each person helped me narrow the conservation and public policy issues. Everyone asked
questions that sculpted and shaped this thesis into an academic work I am proud to present.
Thank you all, in no specific order, for your help and guidance.

USC School of Architecture, Master of Heritage Conservation (MHC) Thesis Committee
Trudi Sandmeier, M.A. Historic Preservation Planning, MHC Program Director
Meredith Drake-Reitan, Ph.D., USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, Adjunct Professor
Katie Horak, M.H.P., MHC Lecturer
Other USC faculty
Kenneth Breisch, Ph.D., MHC Program Founder and Associate Professor
Tanner Blackman, USC Sol Price Public Policy Adjunct Professor
Peyton Hall, FAIA, MHC Materials Conservation Adjunct Professor
City Representatives
Amanda Landry, MURP, City of Burbank Associate Planner
Blair Walsh, MS, New York Landmarks Conservancy Program Coordinator
Kevin Keller, MURP, Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti, Director of Planning and Housing Policy
Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D., City of Tucson Historic Preservation Officer
Eric Lynxwiler and Kim Koga, City of Los Angeles LUMENS/MONA Project Representatives
Aldofo Nodal, Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department Former General Manager
Sara Besley, Hollywood Entertainment District Business Improvement District Representative
Janet Hansen, City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources Deputy Manager
Hollywood Heritage, Inc. (HH)
Christy McAvoy, MA, HH Founder
Fran Offenhauser, Preservation Architect, HH Founder
Bill Roschen, MArch, HH Preservation Committee Member
Family and Friends
Ross Schwartz, Attorney at Law and Writer
Ronda Whaley, Brown and Riding Insurance Surplus Lines Broker and Partner
Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, San Diego Audubon Society Conservation Project Manager
iv

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Musso & Frank Grill 1919 – 1957 City permit summary ........................................... 20
Table 1.2: Historic resources with “sign, marquee, or storefront” in resource name ................... 23
Table 2.1: Hollywood historic resource survey summary ............................................................ 35
Table 2.2: Hollywood historic resource regulatory review summary ........................................... 37
Table 2.3: Historic Hollywood Neon District list of contributors ................................................ 39
Table 4.1: List of proposed ordinances for citywide sign use ...................................................... 59
Table 5.1: Manufacturers of sign resources in chronological order ........................................... 111
v

List of Figures

Figure 0.1 Thesis study area boundary map ................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.1: Frank's Francois Cafe Pre-1923 ................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.2: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1927................................................................................ 11
Figure 1.3: Hollywood Boulevard looking east from McCadden Place, 1928. ............................ 12
Figure 1.4: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1935................................................................................ 18
Figure 1.5: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1945................................................................................ 20
Figure 1.6: Musso & Frank Grill, 2014. ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.1: Vogue Theater Hollywood, 1959. .............................................................................. 25
Figure 2.2: Hollywood Boulevard looking west from Vine Street, 2014. .................................... 30
Figure 2.3: Vogue Theater marquee, 2014.. ................................................................................. 31
Figure 2.4: Vogue Theater marquee digital conversion plans, 2015. ........................................... 32
Figure 2.5: Vogue Theater marquee, and the Mark Twain Hotel and Neon sign.. ....................... 43
Figure 4.1: Thesis study area, public policy planning areas, historic districts, and HCMs map. . 56
Figure 4.2: Mark Twain Hotel ZIMAS information .................................................................... 66
Figure 4.3: Broadway Hollywood, new sign parcel on rehabilitated historic building ................ 82

vi

Abstract
This thesis explores how public policy impacts historic commercial sign conservation
practices in Hollywood, a City of Los Angeles commercial regional center. The findings
conclude that there are significant loopholes that jeopardize historic commercial sign resources.
The recommendation is for the City of Los Angeles to adopt a new historic sign program,
modeled from the Tucson, Arizona Historic Landmark Sign program, as a best practice to
conserve historic commercial signs.
Like in other cities, the demolition threat of a particular sign, or character defining
features of a sign, brings this issue to light. In this case, the Vogue Theater Marquee digital
conversion in 2015 prompted an intensive review of existing policies. The premise of this thesis
was to ferret out the loopholes, and outdated policy language, that thwart historic sign
conservation efforts in Hollywood. The findings resulted in a recommendation to adopt a new
historic sign program that is separate from the historic building designation. This is essentially a
stand-alone program which differs from the existing sign conservation practices in Hollywood.
This stand-alone program is like other ordinances in that it will require a municipal
zoning amendment, but it will also incorporate different elements that in total will offer a
separate and distinct historic designation process for commercial signs administered through the
Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources (OHR). The program
elements include a separate commercial sign survey, a sign designation application, a sign
registry, a sign treatment plan, and a financial incentives plan for conserving; a) historic signs on
historic buildings, b) historic signs on non-historic buildings, and c) freestanding historic signs.
A stand-alone program should also outline a revenue sharing economic strategy for new signs on
historic buildings.
vii

Table of Contents
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Thesis Boundaries: Hollywood ................................................................................................... 3
A Definition of Conservation ...................................................................................................... 4
Managing Changes: HBCE Historic District Commercial Signs................................................ 4
Chapter 1: Commercial Signs in Hollywood .............................................................................. 6
Case Study 1: Musso & Frank Grill, Storefront, and Signage 1919 to 2014 .............................. 6
Brief History of Hollywood’s “Main Street,” Hollywood Boulevard ........................................ 6
Musso & Frank Grill Commercial Storefront, and Signage History........................................... 7
Great White Way of the West: Regionalism, and Illumination Technologies .......................... 13
Musso & Frank Grill Moves Next Door, and Modernizes Its Storefront ................................. 14
The Musso & Frank Grill Rooftop Neon Sign and Its Historic Status ..................................... 22
Chapter 2: Hollywood Historic Signs and Public Policy ......................................................... 25
Case Study 2: Vogue Theater Marquee Sign Digital Conversion 2015 .................................... 26
Compliance Review and Categorical Exemptions .................................................................... 26
The Definition of a “Historic” Resource ................................................................................... 27
Sign Typology ........................................................................................................................... 28
The Interpretation: Marquee Display Message Area ................................................................ 30
The Compromise ....................................................................................................................... 32
The Role of the Historic Resource Survey and Other Regulatory Reviews ............................. 34
Materials Matter ........................................................................................................................ 38
Reversibility in Conservation to Manage Change..................................................................... 38
Other Considerations ................................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 3: Stand-Alone Citywide Historic Sign Programs: Benefits and Challenges ......... 45
City of Tucson, Arizona: Historic Landmark Sign Program .................................................... 45
City of Burbank, California: Historic Sign Program................................................................. 49
Benefits and Challenges of “Stand-Alone” Citywide Historic Programs ................................. 53
viii

Chapter 4: Conservation of Historic Signs in Hollywood Today ........................................... 55
Ordinances and Public Policies ................................................................................................. 55
Surveys and Studies .................................................................................................................. 89
Treatment, Repair, and Rehabilitation: Guidelines and Resources ........................................... 92
Financial Incentives................................................................................................................... 94
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 104
Hollywood Historic Signs Key Public Policy Related Findings Chronology ......................... 104
Recommendations for Next Steps ........................................................................................... 108
Suggested Additional Study Beyond the Scope of Thesis ...................................................... 109
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 113
Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 122
Appendix A: Thesis Boundaries Map. .................................................................................... 122
Appendix B: 2006 Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District Boundaries .................... 123
Appendix C: Thesis and Public Policy Boundaries Map ........................................................ 124
Appendix D: List of Commercial Signs to be Surveyed for Historic Status........................... 125
Appendix E: Commercial Historic Sign Examples in Hollywood .......................................... 128
Appendix F: Hollywood Sign Use District Ordinance, 2010 ................................................. 168
Appendix G: Historic Hollywood Neon Sign District ............................................................ 188
Appendix H: Sign Type Definitions Summary ....................................................................... 231
Appendix I: City Planning Commission Recommendation Report ........................................ 260
Appendix J: CD13, Proposed HCMs Digital Display Signs, Rooftop and Façade ................. 269
Appendix K: CD13 Proposed Eligible HCMs Digital Rooftop and Façade Signs ................. 272
Appendix L: Un-adopted CRA Streetscape Design Plans ...................................................... 274
Appendix M: Office of Historic Resources Summary of Changes ......................................... 334
Appendix N: Broadway Hollywood Sign Determination Letter and Renderings ................... 335
Appendix O: Hollywood BID Allowed Sign Types Flyer ...................................................... 346
Appendix P: Tucson Arizona Historic Landmark Sign Program Documents ........................ 348
Appendix Q: Burbank Historic Sign Program Documents ..................................................... 364
Appendix R: Supergraphic and Off-Site Sign Litigation Summary ....................................... 430
Appendix S: Vogue Theater Marquee Digital Conversion Documents .................................. 431
Appendix T: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.42.180 Heritage Signs .................. 443

1

Introduction

This work is an investigation of existing sign ordinances and public policies governing
the commercial areas of Hollywood, a City of Los Angeles regional commercial center. Like
other municipalities, the City of Los Angeles adopts sign use ordinances, apart from its local
Historic-Cultural Monument designation and review process. These ordinances regulate all
commercial sign use including historic signs and historic building sign use in commercial areas.
The codification of the ordinances, community plans and other policy planning instruments can
create loopholes that jeopardize historic resources. Loopholes exist, for instance, the 1997
Historic Hollywood Neon District which was approved and funded by City Council, but
remained uncodified in the municipal code. This loophole leaves a contributing historic rooftop
sign on the Mark Twain Hotel without a required permit compliance preservation review by the
City. This analysis of the Hollywood commercial core, conducted within a defined thesis
boundary, coupled with a search for historic sign conservation best practices, resulted in a
document that can serve as a guide for similar analysis in other commercial regions. The
recommendation is for city planners and representatives to investigate, develop, and adopt a new
stand-alone historic sign program in Los Angeles for Hollywood, or citywide, to close planning
loopholes. This type of historic sign program will provide a separate and distinct process for
identification and conservation of historic signs.
1

Existing public policy in the City of Los Angeles (City) gives guidance, but fails to
provide a clear and concise understanding of which commercial signs warrant historic
preservation compliance review, treatment, and financial incentives as historic resources.
Developers, conservation advocates, architects, historic property owners, city planners, and the
public must interpret existing public policy to determine the use and treatment of new
commercial signs on historic buildings, historic signs on historic buildings, historic signs on non-
historic buildings and freestanding historic signs. This process has created interpretation conflicts
within the city of Los Angeles, and specifically within the boundaries of this study. Generally,

1
A “stand-alone” historic sign program is defined by author as one that is administered through a preservation
planning department; it includes a commercial historic sign survey, a unique application, a sign registry, a treatment
plan, a financial incentive plan for historic signs on historic buildings, historic signs on non-historic buildings,
freestanding historic signs, and an economic strategy for new signs on historic buildings.

2

public policy language in Los Angeles includes a purpose statement that sometimes includes the
identification and conservation of historic signs as historic resources.
Other cities in the United States of America, such as Tucson, Arizona and Burbank,
California, have recently faced similar challenges. These challenges are informed by specific
threats of historic sign demolition, or the loss of character-defining features of a historic sign
during a rehabilitation project. These types of conservation threats bring the public policy issues
to light, and prompt conservation actions by advocates and city representatives. In Tucson, it was
the Diving Girl neon sign rehabilitation project, and in Burbank it was the demolition of the
Papoos Hot Dog Show sign, that led to the adoption of a separate historic sign ordinance and
stand-alone program in each city.
In Hollywood, it was the Vogue Theater Marquee digital conversion that prompted this
thesis. This thesis provides advocates and city representatives with an intensive review of
existing public policies to ferret out the loopholes, or outdated policy language, that impact
efforts to preserve and rehabilitate commercial historic signs in Hollywood. As an example, the
recent Vogue Theater marquee message display modernization permit compliance review and
appeal that took place in 2015 demonstrated that an interpretation of what “is” the static message
display area of a marquee sign could differ between the City, the developer, and conservation
advocates. City planning staff initially approved a static to digital sign area conversion plan that
allowed character defining features of a historic sign to be demolished, and thus became part of
the conservation loophole that is discussed herein chapter 2, compliance review section, and
chapter 4, ordinances and public policies.
What emerged for Tucson and Burbank were specific stand-alone historic sign programs
that regulate historic sign resources apart from the city ordinances that regulate buildings,
commercial signs, and other historic resources. This thesis draws from these programs to inform
the next steps for Hollywood and other commercial districts.
This thesis presents two case studies in the commercial district of Hollywood. The first is
the Musso & Frank Grill Storefront and signage study to illustrate the influences and changes
along Hollywood Boulevard from early Hollywood to present. The second case study, the Vogue
Theater marquee display message digital conversion, provides key examples of how city
planning project review findings leave loopholes in the identification and treatment of
commercial historic signs.
3

The public policy review also includes information about legal considerations,
environmental review, historic sign program funding and other related issues to acknowledge
that these elements play a part in how public policy is shaped and implemented. The conclusion
posits changes to current public policy language to minimize policy loopholes, increase financial
incentives, discourage take-downs, and suggests improvements in historic survey documentation
practices relating to conserving commercial historic signs in Hollywood.

Thesis Boundaries: Hollywood
Hollywood began as an independent city located west of the City of Los Angeles (City)
and was established in 1903. Hollywood was later annexed, and became a district of the City in
1910.
2
The Hollywood commercial area, a City regional center, is located primarily along
Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, California. The study area follows 1.1 miles along
Hollywood Boulevard from La Brea Avenue to Argyle Avenue and is limited to the total area of
approximately one square mile bounded by Yucca Street, La Brea Avenue, Argyle Avenue and
Sunset Boulevard, including the south side of Sunset Boulevard building façades and signs. This
study boundary includes the Pacific’s Cinema Dome Theater and Marquee, Los Angeles
Historic-Cultural Monument No. 659, located on the south side of Sunset Boulevard between
Ivar Avenue and Vine Street. A map of this area is below and attached as appendix A.
(Figure 0.1)
This thesis will review existing public policies that regulate sign use and historic sign
conservation policies within these boundaries.
3
A map with public policy boundaries with the
thesis boundaries superimposed over those layers is attached under appendix C and is discussed
in chapter 4. The latter map is as visually complex as the public policies that govern the thesis
area.

2
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc, Community Redevelopment Agency, Historic Resource
Survey, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area Historic, Context Statement, February 2010, pages 16, 18,
accessed May 11, 2016, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.
3
Appendix B is an illustration from the Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District (HSUD) ordinance outlining
its boundaries. City of Los Angeles, Amendment of the Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District Ordinance
177547, 2006, accessed May 11, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2006/06-0497_ord_177547.pdf. A color
version was utilized using the City’s code study file. LA City Planning Map, Amended Hollywood Signage
Supplemental Use District (2006), accessed 2015,
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/FinalDraftHollywoodSUD.pdf
4

Figure 0.1: Thesis study area boundary map. Map created by author using QGIS program, 2016. GNU General
Public License, Version 2.12.3, June 1991, Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple
Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA; and OpenStreetmap. QGIS processing tool calculates thesis
study area polygon to be one square mile. Boundaries include building façades on the south side of Sunset
Boulevard to include the Pacific’s Cinema Dome Theater and Marquee, Los Angeles, Historic-Cultural
Monument No. 659.

A Definition of Conservation
The term “conservation” is defined for this thesis. It is important to draw a distinction
between a narrow definition of the term “preservation” which is limited to sustaining the existing
form, integrity, and materials of historic signs, and “conservation” as a broader term, defined by
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines Preservation Terminology, to include the
preservation, reconstruction, rehabilitation (adaptive reuse), and restoration of historic signs.
4

Managing Changes: HBCE Historic District Commercial Signs
The Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District (HBCE), is a historic
district listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and located within the study area of this
thesis. Conservation advocates often hear, “it must be protected,” from the public when faced
with a historic resource that is threatened by demolition. The assumption that familiar buildings,
signs, or objects are “historic” is highly misunderstood, especially when located within an

4
United States National Park Service, Archeology and Historic Preservation, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines, Preservation Terminology, accessed May 11, 2016, https://www.nps.gov/history/local-
law/arch_stnds_10.htm.
5

existing historic district. Historic district boundaries define an area, and the historic district will
include both contributors and non-contributors according to a specific period of significance.
Contributors may include buildings, but not necessarily the signs. As time marches on, new
historic resources may be identified along with updated periods of significance, by a re-
examination of significance, such as a new cultural relevance.
Conservationists rely heavily on physical evidence such as photographs, news articles,
and City records to piece together a history that can articulate the level of integrity of a storefront
or sign. In addition, context statements, and academic writings support findings to help a
conservationist develop an opinion of whether or not a sign or storefront is considered historic.
The technical aspects of what is considered historic within a historic district is a source of
confusion for the public and at times for the governing bodies and City planners. Vernacular
storefronts, along with their signage change over time. It can be difficult to identify what is a
significant character-defining feature of a sign or storefront that retains integrity, or if it would
qualify to be a contributor to a specific period of significance of a historic district. The following
is a case study of Musso & Frank Grill to illustrate the types of storefront and sign changes that
took place over almost one hundred years in a commercial area within a National Register-listed
historic district in Hollywood.
6

Chapter 1: Commercial Signs in Hollywood

Case Study 1: Musso & Frank Grill, Storefront, and Signage 1919 to 2014
Few restaurants or businesses survive ninety-five years on Main Street USA. Musso &
Frank Grill is an example of one that did. This restaurant is still operating, and has been located
on Hollywood Boulevard since 1919. It provides an architectural history of storefront changes
during the transformative years of the 1920s and 1930s on one of America’s main streets. This
case study of the Musso & Frank Grill Restaurant is representative of the many changes
vernacular restaurants underwent from 1919 to 1945 on main streets across the United States.
Other academics have captured the cultural significance of this restaurant.
5
This thesis examines
a vernacular architectural historic review of the City building records, City Directory listings,
historic photos, news articles, and academic texts to tell the story of the Musso & Frank Grill
restaurant storefront and signage as it related to the development of storefronts during the same
period of time on Main Streets throughout the U.S.
The case study begins with a brief history of Hollywood’s main street and the Musso &
Frank Grill storefront design history. An analysis follows of how this restaurant’s façade(s)
related to vernacular American commercial storefront architecture, economic influences,
automobile culture, and lighting technologies during the early to mid-twentieth century. The case
study transitions with a summary of the signage changes that occurred after 1945, and concludes
with a historic status review of the restaurant’s neon rooftop sign erected in 1954.

Brief History of Hollywood’s “Main Street,” Hollywood Boulevard
By 1899, Hollywood, California was an established residential suburb of the City of Los
Angeles with 500 residents. Starting in 1900, Hollywood had a streetcar that ran along this
stretch of Hollywood Boulevard (formerly Prospect Boulevard) that brought people from the
City to the suburb. Hollywood incorporated in 1903, but was relatively quickly annexed to the
City of Los Angeles in 1910. At this time, Hollywood also changed the name of its main street
from Prospect Boulevard to Hollywood Boulevard.
6
Single-family residences located along

5
Kevin Starr, “The Musso & Frank Grill in Hollywood,” In American Places: Encounters with History, ed. William
E. Leuchtenburg, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 283-293.
6
Hollywood Heritage, Inc., Hollywood History Files, “Time Line for Hollywood Community History 1769-1919,”
HHI archives, accessed by author, April, 2016.
7

Hollywood Boulevard were relocated or demolished as retail stores emerged to create a
commercial main street. The buildings erected along Hollywood Boulevard in the late 1800s and
early 1900s were similar to many American pre-1900 commercial areas where storefronts were
typically built one to three at a time and were intended to infill a block and look similar to the
surrounding buildings. By 1920, most of the Hollywood residences had been replaced with one
or two story brick buildings.
7

Musso & Frank Grill Commercial Storefront, and Signage History
The Prechacq & Toulet restaurant (a restaurant that later became known as Frank’s Café,
and then Musso & Frank Grill) was located in a building located at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard.
This building and storefront embodied similar stylistic elements associated with the overall
settlement of the Western United States. Although its original construction date is not known, the
first building permit filed for an alteration 6669 Hollywood Boulevard, was recorded on April
23, 1919 to add a loading room to the east side of a one-story store and “Tin Shop.”
8

A City building permit record shows that a kitchen was added on January 29, 1920, and
the purpose of the building was changed from store to restaurant. The Musso & Frank Grill,
opened in 1919 under the restaurant’s first name of Prechacq & Toulet, located at 6669
Hollywood Boulevard.
9
No photos were discovered of the 1919 Prechacq & Toulet storefront, at
the time of publishing this research. However, a pre-1923 storefront photo of the restaurant in
figure 1.1 shows a building that appears to be a false-front, Italianate storefront made of cast
iron, or, of iron and brick. This was a building type that was indicative of the commercial
storefronts built before 1900 in America. (Figure 1.1)

7
City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), Hollywood Ocean View Tract, Block 2, Lot 2,
6661-6667 Hollywood Boulevard, new construction permit document number 1917LA2892, May 24, 1917. A copy
of the document was accessed by author in person at the LADBS counter on October 28, 2014. City building permit
records show that a single family residential building located at 6665 Hollywood Boulevard owned by Lewis and
Alice Mueller was relocated in 1913 from Hollywood Boulevard to a street nearby at 1715 Cherokee Street. Several
years later the permit records show that a new one story brick commercial building, designed by architect L.A.
Smith, was erected in 1917 by a new owner/developer, Edward T. Hayden. The new building spanned four
addresses of 6661, 6663, 6665 and 6667 Hollywood Boulevard with the purpose of crating commercial space for
multiple retail stores.
8
Ibid.
9
City of Los Angeles, "Los Angeles City Directory," Los Angeles Public Library, 1918-1942, downloaded,
accessed November 14, 2014, http://rescarta.lapl.org/ResCarta-Web/jsp/RcWebBrowse.jsp.
8

Figure 1.1: Frank's Francois Cafe Pre-1923. The main entrance was located at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California. Author determined that this photo is pre-1923 from research on name of café and address.
Permission granted by the Los Angeles Public Library. Digital photo source, Security Pacific National Bank
Collection/Los Angeles Public Library. There is a portion of an early automobile visible in the photo that appears
parked in front of the restaurant. One can see in the red circle, the extended parapet of the façade adjacent to, and
in comparison of, the Frank’s Café façade such that it illustrates the “false-front” or “decorated shed” aspect of the
typical commercial design that was used to make the building look taller. The photo shows that the restaurant is a
vernacular single-fronted symmetrically fenestrated commercial building with three bays across the façade framed
by semielliptical arcade arches and recessed display multi-light windows that flanked the main double door
entrance. Overall the storefront façade appears to be constructed of brick with some kind of metal screen with
embedded transom windows atop three bays of arched partial cased colonnade openings supported by classically
inspired rectangular columns. This was a typical vernacular commercial eclectic design that included plate glass
and cast iron storefronts that could be considered either Romanesque or Italianate. While there is no building
permit on record to establish the building’s date of construction, the research presented in this thesis concludes that
the original building may have been constructed circa 1900.

By the early 1900s, America’s homogenous commercial built environment led to the
beginning of storefront alterations. These commercial façade changes were a way for store
owners to express the individuality of the businesses. The change was intended to induce a
passerby to stop, and enter the shop. Thus, the gross area allocated for display was increased.
9

By September of 1923, the restaurant had changed its name to, “Frank’s Café.” It appears
that the restaurant, like other businesses along main streets throughout the U.S., was setting itself
apart from other businesses along Hollywood Boulevard, but with the emphasis on the large
commercial sign, versus enlarged display glass windows. The large commercial sign almost
spanned the entire length of the storefront’s frieze above the double doors and large display glass
areas. It also appears upon closer inspection of the photo that it may have also been illuminated
with small incandescent lights in the sign’s letters spelling, “Francois.” While the City directory
and building permit records do not reflect the name Francois, it clearly appears in the photo as
the main name in the storefront signage. Inserting Francois, was likely intended to be a French
language variation on the English language name of Frank, and may have been a marketing name
for the sign to convey that Frank’s Café was a French restaurant. A restaurant menu and a Los
Angeles Times news article made reference to Frank’s Cafe as a new French restaurant.
10

The restaurant also announced in an opening day letter dated 1923 that it had modernized
the furnishings of the restaurant.
11
The building permits reflected that by December 1923 new
seating booths were installed, and the soda fountain removed to make room for a waiting/cloak
room. It is unclear if the 1923 modernization included the large partially electric sign.
This commercial area was unique in that it benefitted from a high concentration of
affluence during the 1920s associated with the rise of the motion picture studios, movie theaters,
and entertainment business located in Hollywood. In correlation to the affluence, there was also a
high rate of early automobile ownership in Hollywood comparison to the rest of the U.S.
The restaurant’s large scale, illuminated, storefront signage indicates that there was a
desire for by the owners to attract patrons using different modes of transportation. There were
local pedestrians, people arriving from the City by streetcar, and individuals speeding by in their
new automobiles. The automobile culture was quickly emerging in Hollywood by the early to

10
Musso & Frank Grill website, "History," Musso & Frank Grill, accessed June 17, 2016,
http://mussoandfrank.com/history/.
11
Modernizing and Remodeling Opening Day Letter, July 1923, posted online courtesy of Mary Mallory, LA Daily
Mirror, 1923, accessed June 18, 2016, https://ladailymirror.com/2013/07/29/an-anniversary-for-musso-frank/.
10

mid-1920s. As a result, it appears that the scale of the signs grew larger along with increased
nighttime illumination.
12

It appears that sometime between 1923 and 1927, based on photos in figures 1.1 and 1.2,
the restaurant erected a larger commercial sign that projected out from the storefront, spanned
the entire length of the storefront, and contained small individual electric light bulbs to
illuminate the restaurant name, and outline of the entire shape of the sign. In addition, the sides
of this sign structure have the appearance of a singular “blade sign” because the visible text of
the sign as you approach, from east or west, the word, “Grill” is visible along Hollywood
Boulevard.
13
(Figure 1.2)

12
The Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, Historic Resources Survey, includes a context statement relating to
commercial development in the early twentieth century, and the theme of emerging commercial centers and
corridors. It states that while Hollywood is an example of an “Aladdin City,” a term coined and defined by author
Richard Longstreth, as one that is tied to strategic locations along streetcar routes, it was also unlike other Aladdin
Cities. Hollywood targeted a, higher means type of clientele. Thus, in contrast to a typical Aladdin City, there was a
high rate of private car ownership in Hollywood that further facilitated the competition between urban center and the
periphery in a manner not evidenced in other examples. The Early Residential Development context statement
contains a photo of Hollywood Boulevard in 1900 with a streetcar and notes that this was the first electric track
installed down the length of Prospect Avenue that was later re-named Hollywood Boulevard. Community
Redevelopment Agency, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Historic Resources Survey context statement, prepared
by Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc., February 2010: 17,50,70, accessed May 14, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.
13
A definition of a “blade sign” is described in detail in the author’s definition summary in appendix H.
11

Figure 1.2: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1927. Main entrance located at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California. Permission for use granted by Decor Art Galleries, Inc, Owner, Hollywood Historic Photos, accessed
March 28, 2016 (http://hollywoodhistoricphotos.com/popup_image.php/pID/1768). In comparison to the photo in
figure 1.1, the restaurant façade shows a change at the main entrance. The partially encased arched openings were
painted with ornate detailing, and the transom windows and surrounds appear to have been painted an opaque dark
color with the large center screen now removed. Notice in this photo that the name, the Frank is missing the “s” in
the smaller window and awning signs. City directories reflect the name Musso & Frank Grill without an “s” at the
end of Frank. It is possible that there may have been some confusion from the name transition from “Frank’s Café”
to “Musso & Frank(s) Grill.”

Figure 1.2 is a view from across the street on the south side of Hollywood Boulevard
looking north at the restaurant’s main façade. The electric portion of the sign no longer
advertises the restaurant as Francois. The updated sign illuminated the outline of the whole large
scale projecting sign, and entire name of, “Musso & Franks Grill.” The influence of the
automobile on main street commercial signage is immediately apparent with this sign change
featured a projected word “Grill” positioned on the side for a quick read as one drove by during
the day, and the electric light bulbs illuminated the name of the restaurant at night.
12

As discussed earlier, by the mid-1920s, Hollywood was a destination for entertainment
and shopping.
14
One can see Musso & Frank Grill restaurant, and its signage, in context with the
other commercial buildings, pedestrians, electric streetcar, and automobiles in a 1928 photo.
(Figure 1.3)

Figure 1.3: Hollywood Boulevard looking east from McCadden Place, 1928. Photo courtesy of the USC Libraries.
California Historical Society Collection, 1860-1960. Author clipped section for illustration. Digitally reproduced by
the USC Digital Library; From the California Historical Society Collection at the University of Southern California,
accessed March 27, 2016 (http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll65/id/24318). Both streetcar and
automobiles are visible in this photo.

14
Hollywood Boulevard is called the “Style Center of the World," with a map of Hollywood Boulevard between La
Brea Avenue and Vine Street, Display Ad 16 -- no Title." Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File), Oct 24, 1928.
13

Great White Way of the West: Regionalism, and Illumination Technologies
In Hollywood, the entertainment business introduced bigger and brighter signs. In
addition, like many other American urban areas in the early twentieth century, Hollywood had an
enthusiasm for bright lights. Journalists as early as the late nineteenth century started to describe
a dazzling Manhattan after dark, with all of its theater lights on Broadway as the New York’s
Great White Way. “Civic boosters in smaller American urban centers seemed intent on
establishing scaled-down versions of New York’s Great White Way along their “main streets” as
a means of demonstrating their nationalism.”
15

There is evidence of this in Hollywood, as touted in a Los Angeles Times, October, 24,
1928, advertisement. The ad boasts of Hollywood Boulevard as being the, “Style Center of the
World” and markets the street as the, “Great White Way of the West.”
16
New York was known
for its theatrical stage performance “theatres” and Hollywood was becoming known for its
“movie theaters” showcasing the new technology of film and the motion picture. The ad coining
Hollywood Boulevard as the Great White way of the West implies that Hollywood civic boosters
intended for Hollywood to rival New York in creating a parallel image of an illuminated theater
district to support this new form of entertainment. Thus, like many other main street boosters
across America, Hollywood appears to have encouraged electric business signs on individual
storefronts to give the appearance of a more progressive street and to provide adequate lighting
for lingering customers and movie goers. At the time this ad was published it listed seven
theaters between the 6300 to 7100 blocks along Hollywood Boulevard. There are several
examples of how this nationalism and technology influenced the Musso & Frank Grill’s
commercial signage, including the use of incandescent light bulbs to illuminate the signage, and
a projecting sign design influenced by the automobile as a new machine technology.

15
Martin Treu, Signs, Streets, and Storefronts: A History of Architecture and Graphics along America's
Commercial Corridors (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 75.
16
Hollywood Boulevard is called the “Style Center of the World," with a map of Hollywood Boulevard between La
Brea Avenue and Vine Street with Musso, Frank Grill listed under Cafes at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard. Display Ad
16 -- no Title." Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File), Oct 24, 1928, accessed December 1, 2014, Proquest
Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (162157048)
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/162157048?accountid=147
49.
14

Musso & Frank Grill Moves Next Door, and Modernizes Its Storefront
The U.S. stock market crashed in 1929 and an economic depression ensued for the next
decade. During this decade most of America’s main street shops suffered from lack of
maintenance. Simultaneously, there was a growing concern that main streets were in trouble due
to the increasing popularity and use of the automobile. With a high concentration of automobile
owners emerging in Hollywood, there were some early nearby experimental auto centric
shopping centers that developed in the mid and late 1920s in Los Angeles, such as E.R. Mauzy’s
English Village of Shops located at 9988 Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. It opened in
1924 and featured a courtyard for automobiles. There was also the Chapman Market, developed
in 1928 by Charles Chapman and designed by the architecture firm Morgan, Walls & Clements.
This center used large advertising billboards to attract customers from the roadside.
17

Richard Longstreth wrote about the transformation of commercial space in Los Angeles
during these eras. He asked the question, referencing a 1931 article in Popular Mechanics
magazine, “Is Main Street doomed?”
18
Longstreth answers this question and summarized the
1931 magazine’s featured article on Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision of future commercial
development. In 1932, Wright went on to publish a book called, The Disappearing City. In it he
described a new “Broadacre City” of the future with schematic plans for a new pattern of
settlement based on the concept of a drive-in gasoline station that would replace existing main
street commercial spaces. Longstreth concluded that Wright’s manifesto did not ultimately affect
America’s main streets during that era, and stated that “traditional configurations – the legacy of
Main Street – continued to exercise considerable influence on retail development,”
19
during the
1930s and into the next decade.
During the depression, main street store owners across America like all businesses
suffered financially. Small main street businesses were particularly affected, and many deferred
routine building maintenance on their aging buildings. They also had a need to attract new
patrons to support their businesses. At the same time, there was a need for skilled workers to find

17
Richard W. Longstreth, The drive-in, the supermarket, and the transformation of commercial space in Los
Angeles, 1914-1941 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999), 129-141. Longstreth summarizes Frank Lloyd
Wright beliefs that, “routine use of the automobile was a liberating force that demanded fundamental changes in the
ordering of retail space.”
18
Ibid.
19
Longstreth, The Drive-in, the Supermarket, and the transformation of commercial space in Los Angeles, 1914-
1941, 129-133.
15

jobs, and this prompted the formation of the National Emergency Council (NEC) in the late
1933. The NEC began to craft a program for store owners and leaseholders to infuse working
capital into the market to help main street America get back on its feet. The NEC coordinated
economic activities that were part of President Roosevelt’s public policy program called the
“New Deal.”
The NEC devised a Modernization Credit Plan (MCP) aimed at modernizing main
streets as well as houses to stimulate the economy and put the construction industry back to
work. Prior to this, modernization was regarded as a real estate strategy to garner high profit
returns on rents. The MCP would shift the public’s concept of modernization from a real estate
strategy of procuring higher profits to a government economic policy means of encouraging
employment.

The MCP program created individual loans that required no collateral. A local lender’s
positive assessment of the borrower’s “strength of character,” would be enough.
Borrowers were restricted to property owners and loans were capped at $2,000. Starting
in 1935, the MCP was able to permit lending to long-term tenants and lessees and to
allow loans up to $50,000 for business properties. “Both of these changes were directed
at Main Street merchants, who were seen as an untapped modernization market.”
20

In 1934, the federal government estimated that there were 1.5 million stores operating in
the U. S. The majority were in the central business districts and principal commercial corridors
of large cities and small towns, though increasingly they were also found on the rapidly
developing roadsides of the urban periphery. Over the next ten years, financial institutions,
merchants, and property owners lent and spent $5 billion to physically improve these stores.
Most of the money was spent on exterior renovations, especially new façades attached to the
fronts of existing buildings. These “modernized” storefronts were usually fabricated of such
machine-age materials as structural glass, enameled steel, glass blocks, and extruded
aluminum.
21
This economic infusion into the storefronts across America accelerated to the
modern transformation of main street during the 1930s.
22

20
Gabrielle Esperdy, Modernizing Main Street: Architecture and Consumer Culture in the New Deal (Chicago, IL,
USA: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
21
Ibid.
22
Martin Treu, Signs, Streets, and Storefronts: A History of Architecture and Graphics along America's Commercial
Corridors, 117-121.
16

While an earlier five-story plan for 6669 Hollywood Boulevard did not materialize, a new
modernistic picture theater building was financed in 1934.
23
The old building, former site of
Musso & Frank Grill, was demolished in 1934. A new Vogue theater was slated for construction
in 1935. During this time, Musso & Frank Grill relocated from 6669 to 6667 Hollywood
Boulevard and modernized its storefront in 1935. Musso & Frank Grill changed its late 1800s
brick Italianate main entrance design from its previous location at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard to
the newly designed location at 6667 Hollywood Boulevard to have a more eclectic storefront
entrance. It had hints in the upper portion of the then popular neon elements attached to
Streamline Moderne architectural ledge, a design style that embraced the automobile as a
machine, and the concept of speed with “stripped off ornament, rounded the corners and added
horizontal bandings which looked like they had been whipped taut by terrific aerodynamic
forces.”
24

It is unclear if it took advantage of the MCP government programs aimed at helping store
owners to modernize. The Musso & Frank Grill owners were likely aware that there was a
previous plan for its current site was to be razed and become a five-story business structure.
25

While this plan was never developed, it gave the restaurant the impetus to begin negotiations for
a new lease next door. Research provides evidence that a planned move started taking shape in
1933. The City building permit information for 6667 Hollywood Boulevard, shows building
owners, Howard E. Heyden and Virginia Marie Mahl (Hayden), began alterations consistent with
restaurant use in October of 1933.

23
Article states that Mr. Shehan will expend in excess of $265,000. to erect a new 900 person capacity moving
picture modernistic theater building designed by S. Charles Lee, with a high tower at 6669-6677 Hollywood
Boulevard, "HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD TO HAVE NEW THEATER." Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File),
Dec 23, 1934, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (163317726) accessed May 13, 2016,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/163317726?accountid=147
49.
24
Mark Gelernter, A History of Buildings in their Cultural American and Technological Context Architecture
(Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 1999), 249.
25
To understand why Musso & Frank moved next door, it is important to understand that the long-term lease holder
(ninety-nine years) of 6669 Hollywood Boulevard first announced in 1923 that there were plans to raze the existing
site to make way for a new five-story business structure as soon as the leases in the building expired. The
Hollywood leasehold purchase and new building plans were announced in a Los Angeles Times article on December
14, 1923, "HOLLYWOOD LEASEHOLD PURCHASED," Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File), Dec 14, 1923,
ProQuest (161556043) accessed November 22, 2014,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/161556043?accountid=147
49.
17

Three months later, a building permit was issued to Musso & Frank Grill for the erection
of a cooling tower on the roof of 6667 Hollywood Boulevard on January 8, 1934. A cooling
tower installation is consistent with restaurant use of either refrigeration and/or new thermal
comfort controls, such as air conditioning. A year later Heyden cut through to 6667 to build an
adjacent room with a sheet metal canopy. All of the permitted work in 1933 to 1934 is under the
initial MCP $2,000 cap. These changes could also have been made by Hayden to secure a long-
term lease of a well-established restaurant. The latter seems more likely given the timing and the
circumstances. Another consideration in determining if financial incentives provided by the MCP
were utilized is that Hollywood was somewhat sheltered from the realities other main streets
faced. Hollywood was booming during these challenging years, producing entertainment for a
depressed nation. Musso & Frank Grill was successful and popular with locals as it was a
meeting place for working writers, actors, and professionals.
By 1935, the Vogue Theater, designed by S. Charles Lee, was completed with a new
marquee and neon blade sign.
26
At the same time, Musso & Frank Grill had moved next door,
and incorporated neon, the most influential sign illumination technology that was introduced into
commercial signs about a decade earlier in the mid-1920s. One gets the sense from the 1935
photo that the streetlamps, storefronts, and neon signs are creating a brightly lighted boulevard.
(Figure 1.4)

26
City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Building Permit Documents for 6661-6667 Hollywood
Boulevard and 6669 Hollywood Boulevard, Summary Reports and Individual Permits, Los Angeles: City of Los
Angeles, 1913 – 1945. (Table 1.1)
18

Figure 1.4: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1935. Main entrance located at 6667 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California. Photo from the Mott/Merge Photograph collection, courtesy of the California History Room, California
State Library, Sacramento, California. Photograph: STKS 3, Vogue Theatre photo, Mott-Merge Collection, Box 22,
folder 533, call number 1992-2552, accessed March 29, 2016,
http://catalog.library.ca.gov/exlibris/aleph/a21_1/apache_media/XJPA4LRTLRAREB8G3S7MHUVICJ6YL3.jpeg.

19

Although there is no specific building and safety sign installation permit on record, in the
photo, one can see that Musso & Frank Grill added its own new neon italicized lettered
storefront sign that reads, “Musso & Frank Grill.”
The upper portion of the new façade embodied hints of then popular Streamline Moderne
architecture. The brick building was clad with smooth stucco and the new sign’s italicized
lettering was perched on a modern ledge and was illuminated with neon light. The design is best
understood when viewing it as a continuation of the new Vogue Theater remodel that replaced
the old brick building, and incorporated Moderne design motifs. The corner of the Vogue
Theater building is rounded and it gave the Musso & Frank Grill lettering a windswept image as
if it were on a ship moving westward. However, this new design, with smooth stucco on the
upper half of the façade, was also married with a wood clad traditional entrance with multi-light
windows and two octagonal clerestory windows and scalloped gingerbread horizontal wood
ornamental detail trim above and below the window openings.
The other stores that appear in this photo show large well-lighted glass display cases and
additional neon signage. This is in sharp contrast to what this area looked like just a few years’
prior in 1928. This type of change was occurring throughout America from 1935 to 1940s. Also,
Hollywood Boulevard was widened at this time to accommodate more automobiles near
Highland Avenue.
The view from across the street ten years later, as seen in the below photo dated 1945,
reveals alterations that seem disjointed. There is a new entrance element that is comprised of a
two-sided opening that resembles a ship, or has Moderne design influences. These elements
include the rounded door entrance and porthole window openings. The storefront below the sign
retains a more traditional recessed wood clad entrance with wood casement windows that also
matches the neighboring storefront to the east. (Figure 1.5)
20

Figure 1.5: Musso & Frank Grill, circa 1945. There was an addition of neon signs to the exterior at both the
automobile and pedestrian levels of the main entrance located at 6667 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.
Photo from Hollywood Historic Photos, permission for use granted by Decor Art Galleries, Inc, Owner, Hollywood
Historic Photos, accessed November 28, 2014
(http://hollywoodhistoricphotos.ipower.com/hhpstore/popup_image.php/pID/2649).

Below is a summary of City building permits for storefront changes in a table from 1919
to 1957. (Table 1.1)
Date Source
Name on
document Description (if any)
Hollywood
Boulevard Address
1919 City Directory Prechacq & Toulet 6669
1923 City Directory Ad Frank's Café
(Francois)
6669
late
1923
Photo Source Musso & Frank
Grill
6669
1933 City Building
Permit No.
1933LA15106
Howard Heyden
& Virginia Mahl
Demolition of
building to make
room for new
structure
6669
1934 City Building
Permit No.
1934LA15108
Musso Franks
Grill
Erect cooling towers
on roof
6667
21

1943 City Building
Permit No.
1943LA483
Musso Frank Remodel store front 6667
1945 City Building
Permit No.
1945LA2835
John Musso Move door from
center of store to left
side and install
vestibule.
6667
1954 City Building
Permit No.
LA83216
Musso & Frank New neon roof sign 6667
1957 City Building
Permit No.
LA61437
Musso & Frank (2) Metal and plastic
neon wall signs (note:
approve type plastic.)
6667
Table 1.1: Musso & Frank Grill 1919-1957 City permit summary compiled by author. Musso & Frank Grill City
sign permits accessed by author at Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, October 28, 2014.

Research shows that a decade later in 1954, Musso & Frank Grill’s rooftop neon sign was
added. The addition of the rooftop neon sign coincides with the completion of the Hollywood
Freeway (California State Route 101) in 1954. It is likely that this would allow a greater volume
of automobile access to Hollywood to an already known region with a high concentration for
automobile sales and service in the greater Los Angeles area.
27
While this restaurant was not an
inexpensive roadside eatery, it did erect a large neon rooftop sign as possible means to attract
passing motorists. A few years later, in 1957, two metal and plastic neon wall signs, with a new
type of plastic material were approved by the Building and Safety Department.
28

Since then, the signs appear to be well-maintained and remain unaltered. The windows
and second entrance door on the east side of the restaurant have been removed and replaced with
stucco, and flagstone has been applied to the baseline of the two storefront openings. Below is a
photograph of the signage as of 2014. (Figure 1.6)

27
CRA Hollywood Redevelopment Project Historic resources context statement, prepared by Chattel Architecture,
Planning and Preservation, Inc., February 2010, 109, accessed May 14, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.

28
Musso & Frank Grill City Building and Safety sign permits attached as part of appendix E.
22

Figure 1.6: Musso & Frank Grill, 2014. Main entrance located at 6667 Hollywood Boulevard. Photo by author,
April 30, 2014.

The Musso & Frank Grill that exists today, started under the name of Prechacq & Toulet
and Frank’s Café, was located at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard from 1919 to 1934. Since 1934, the
Musso & Frank Grill has been located at 6667 Hollywood Boulevard.

The Musso & Frank Grill Rooftop Neon Sign and Its Historic Status
This restaurant has been sold a number of times, and parts of the business equity have
been passed from one generation to the next. The history of the restaurant’s location, the correct
spelling of the name, the dates of building alterations, all varies depending on the source. This
has created conflicting public information relating to this historic resource.
29
Changes over time
to vernacular commercial storefronts and signage present a challenge for conservation. For

29
For example, the 1980s Historic district survey record stated that the building was altered in 1937, but the building
permits and photos indicate that these major alterations relating to Musso & Frank Grill took place between 1933
and 1935. There was high style modern commercial design happening on Hollywood Boulevard, however, the
Musso & Frank Grill was only a modest vernacular facade transformation towards a modern storefront.
23

instance, the signs and storefront may be installed at different times and represent different eras.
Such is the case for the Musso and Frank 1954 rooftop neon sign.
The building is considered a contributor to the HBCE historic district and retains most of
its integrity on the interior, with some alterations to the exterior. The neon rooftop sign retains
integrity but since it was erected in 1954, it falls outside of the HBCE historic district period of
significance with a date range of 1915 to 1939.
30

In 1997 the Los Angeles Cultural Affairs department included the Musso & Frank
Rooftop Neon sign on the list of contributors to the Historic Hollywood Neon District. This
district and sign rehabilitation program was funded at the time but never fully codified into City
planning preservation records, leaving the historic status of the sign in limbo. Thus, the status of
the neon sign remains unclear if the rooftop neon sign erected in 1954 is considered to be a
designated historic resource, or a character-defining feature of the building, or not.
31
There is a
more detailed discussion of this in chapter 4.
This confusion is exacerbated by a patchwork of local monument sign, marquee, or
storefront designations that include these objects or features as part of the monument name some
of the time, whereas other signs may have been called out in a nomination, but not included in
the HCM name. A full review of all HCM and historic district contributor nominations in
Hollywood goes beyond the scope of this thesis, but should be pursued as part of the proposed
historic sign survey in Hollywood.
32
(Table 1.2)

Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) Names HCM No., and
Designation Date
Hollywood Sign & Land Underneath * LA HCM No. 111, 1973
York Boulevard State Bank – Bank of America and Storefronts LA HCM No. 581, 1993
Egyptian Theater and Forecourt Storefronts* LA HCM No. 584, 1993
Trianon and Neon Roof Sign* LA HCM No. 616, 1995
Brynmoor Apartments Neon Roof Sign LA HCM No. 641, 1997

30
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Inventory and Nomination Form, March 6, 1985,
http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/85000704.pdf.
31
1997 Historic Hollywood Neon Sign District, CF97-2081, attached appendix H.
32
Appendix D is a chart developed by the author. This list of signs is color coded to reflect a windshield survey of
Hollywood that identifies existing signs that have historic status, unknown historic status, and non-historic status.
24

Embassy Apartment Neon Roof Sign LA HCM No. 642, 1997
Superba Apartments Incandescent Roof Sign LA HCM No. 643, 1997
Jensens Recreation Center & Electric Roof Sign LA HCM No. 652, 1997
Pacific’s Cinerama Dome Theatre and Marquee* LA HCM No. 659, 1997
Broadway Department Store and Neon Sign* LA HCM No. 664, 1999
Hollywood Plaza Hotel and Neon Sign* LA HCM No. 665, 1999
Taft Building and Neon Sign* LA HCM No. 666, 1999
The Leader Building Rooftop Neon Sign LA HCM No. 667, 1999
Capitol Tower and Rooftop Sign* LA HCM No. 857, 2006
Mayfair Apartments and Rooftop Neon Sign* LA HCM No. 867, 2007
Table 1.2: Historic resources with “sign, marquee, or storefront” in the resource name. Compiled by author using the
City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Preservation, “List of Historic-Cultural Monuments Updated Winter 2016,”
accessed, May 2016, http://preservation.lacity.org/commission/designated-historic-cultural-monuments.

The Musso & Frank Grill rooftop neon sign does not appear in the list of Los Angeles
HCMs that reference sign, marquee, or storefront in the historic resource name. Nine of the
fifteen HCM historic sign resources (60 percent), that specifically include sign, marquee, or
storefront in the monument name, are located in Hollywood and are highlighted with an asterisk
(*) symbol in table 1.2.
33
This observation, and the noted concentration, is included to support
the thesis recommendation for a new historic sign district to be implemented in Hollywood.

33
Other than the iconic Hollywood Sign (HCM No. 111 designated in 1973) the next individual HCM designations
that included the word “sign” as part of the resource name appeared in 1995. For example, the Trianon and Neon
Roof Sign HCM 616, and the Broadway Hollywood and Rooftop Sign, HCM 664 were designated in 1999. This
change in adding the word “sign” as part of the resource name may create an unintended challenge other
contributing or HCM buildings that did not specifically call out signs in the name. For example, the Hollywood
Roosevelt Hotel and Pool, HCM 545 designated in 1991, has a rooftop neon sign but it is not specifically mentioned
in the resource name. The first marquee to be included in the name was in 1998, the Pacific’s Cinerama Dome
Theatre and Marquee, HCM No. 659.
25

Chapter 2: Hollywood Historic Signs and Public Policy
The Vogue Theater, next door to the current Musso & Frank Grill, was completed in
1935 and is located at 6669 Hollywood Boulevard. The original Vogue Theater marquee and
storefront were altered in 1959. Below is a sketch that closely resembles the as-built storefront in
1959. (Figure 2.1)

Figure 2.1: Vogue Theater Hollywood, 1959. Artist’s sketch of theater remodel of 6669 Hollywood Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California. Permission granted by the Los Angeles Public Library. Digital photo source, Herald-Examiner
Collection/Los Angeles Public Library.
34

34
Artist's sketch of the $250,000 remodeled Fox West Coast Vogue Theater in Hollywood on June 29, 1959. S.
Charles Lee was the original building architect, J. Arthur Drieloma was the architect for the storefront remodel.
26

Case Study 2: Vogue Theater Marquee Sign Digital Conversion 2015
New technologies are emerging, such as digital displays. Marquee conversions from
static to digital are beginning to alter the historic signs along the Hollywood streetscapes. Digital
sign conversions of static billboards and marquees, are being integrated as part of the next wave
of sign and storefront updates within the historic district. The second case study in this thesis of
the Vogue Theater marquee digital conversion process will illustrate the public policy challenges
of how new technologies are integrated to update existing storefronts. This chapter includes a
review of the City permit compliance process, definitions of what is considered “historic,” the
sign types in Hollywood, the role of the historic resource surveys, and how this all relates to
interpretations of what changes are allowed during a rehabilitation project.

Compliance Review and Categorical Exemptions
The Vogue Theater owners applied for a marquee digital conversion in 2015. The permit
compliance review by City planners was completed and the initial findings allowed the removal
of the neon character defining features of the marquee. The City’s findings did not generate any
further environmental or historic preservation review, and the city issued a categorical
environmental exemption to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
The city review of this historic resource was flawed. It exposed the need for a change in how city
planners assess historic sign resources in the HBCE Historic district and its surrounding areas.
Three key considerations informed the City’s determinations.
35

First, this building storefront and signage was categorized as a non-contributor within the
historic district in the 1980s. At the time the building was reviewed for the National Register
nomination, the remodeled storefront fell under the minimum National Register age requirement
of fifty years of age, and fell outside of the HBCE Historic district period of significance of 1915
to 1939. In 1985, the 1959 remodel would have only been in existence for twenty-six years. In
1997, the resource would have been thirty-eight years old.
36

Second, the Vogue Theater neon signage was identified as a contributor to a 1997
Historic Neon District by the Mayor and Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, yet it was

35
Compliance review documents and findings are attached as appendix S.
36
The two “stand alone” historic sign programs reviewed in chapter 3 include signs that are less than fifty years old
as contributors to the district.
27

not mentioned or evaluated using this information in the permit compliance review process.
Thus, it appears that since the City records did not trigger a historic review by the City
representatives that typically review such alteration requests relating to historic resources such as
the Office of Historic Resources, the Community Redevelopment Agency or the Cultural
Heritage Commission.
Third, at the time of review, while arguably eligible since 1997, the storefront and neon
signage had not been individually nominated or designated as a local HCM under the Los
Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) ordinance. It is worth noting that the HCM
nomination does not require a minimum age of fifty years like the National Register. There is
more flexibility in the local HCM age criteria.

The Definition of a “Historic” Resource
The three considerations outlined above are important as the City must review the
following definitions to present findings and evaluate historic status. In the 2010 Hollywood
Signage Supplemental Use District (SUD) Ordinance, a building or structure is considered
historic if it:

1. is listed as a Historic-Cultural Monument by the City of Los Angeles;
2. is listed in, or has been determined to be “eligible” or “potentially eligible” for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places or has been determined
“eligible” for listing in the California Register of Historic Places by a local, state,
or federal agency as part of an official survey prepared for such and agency or is
listed as such in the State Historic Resources Inventory;
3. is listed as a historically significant building in a historic resources survey
conducted by the CRA or the Director; or
4. is listed as a contributing structure to a National Register Historic district.
37

In addition to these four criteria, there are other City survey sources that attribute a
historic status to a building or sign, but are not included for consideration as defined in the SUD.
For example, Survey LA is a citywide historic resources survey administered by the City’s
Department of Planning, Office of Historic Resources, but none of its findings of eligibility will
trigger historic preservation review under historic sign definitions during a permit compliance

37
Excerpt from City of Los Angeles, 2010 Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District appendix F.
28

review. This could be argued on a case by case basis as local advocate, Hollywood Heritage, Inc.
(HH), did in an appeal letter, but the general City Planning interpretation is that SurveyLA did
not and will not trigger status of eligible for historic status or review.
38
There may be an
exception during a discretionary review of a project, which differs from a permit compliance
review required for signs located within the SUD boundaries. SurveyLA Hollywood findings
were uploaded in early 2016. However, the findings did not change this interpretation. This is
another reason to pursue a stand-alone sign program to create a clear and equitable permit
compliance and project review process.
The City Planning Department has approved the use of blanket City and State categorical
exemption(s) to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental
review requirements under SUDs and other sign ordinances. If a building or structure is not
determined to be historic, these exemptions can be used to satisfy the requirement without
further review. These blanket exemptions can also be utilized by City planners to satisfy CEQA
environmental review requirements if the alteration impacts on a historic resource are found to
be not significant, and there are mitigation measures agreed to as part of a plan.
This streamlined process is effective if the determination of what is historic is accurate
and devastating if the process fails to evaluate all possible or potential local historic resources.
The categorical exemption limits the public awareness and disclosure and identification of
historic resources that the environmental review process is intended to vet.

Sign Typology
There are many types of signs. Descriptions and examples of sign types appear in historic
context statements, books, journals, preservation briefs, community plans, sign ordinances,
design guidelines and other such resources.
The description and definitions of sign types is of particular importance. At some point
those definitions will be tested when a city planner or conservationist is evaluating a City sign
permit request for any number of reasons such as repair, maintenance, re-creation, alterations, or
even demolition.

38
Hollywood Heritage, Inc., website, about us, accessed June 22, 2016, http://www.hollywoodheritage.org/#!about-
us/c149x, and City planning website, case report DIR-2015-620-SPP-1A, appeal actions determination letter,
http://planning.lacity.org/PdisCaseInfo/Home/GetDocument/NWI0MzI3ZjgtYzM2MC00MjkzLWIwN2QtZWE0M
TViZTlkOWM00.
29

Below is a summary list of the types of signs that can be found defined or mentioned in
the Hollywood SUD.
39

• Architectural Ledge Sign • Marquee Sign • Solid Panel Roof Sign
• Awning Sign • Open Panel Roof Sign • Freestanding Sign
• Billboard • Pedestrian Sign • Digital Display
• Can Sign • Pillar Sign • Window Sign
• Captive Balloon Sign • Restored Historic Sign • Monument Sign
• Hanging Sign • Sandwich Board Sign • Wall Sign
• Information Sign • Temporary Sign

Notice that the word “Neon” sign does not appear as a type, but rather you would look to
the description of materials for each of these signs might include additional wording such as for
the Open Panel Roof Sign, “channel letters, graphic segments, open lighting.”
40

There are also sign types that are found in descriptions of local historic resources, or
historic context statements that are missing in the public policy. For example, there is no
definition for radio tower as a sign type in the Hollywood SUD language. However, the theme of
radio broadcasting, television production and recording appears in Community Redevelopment
Agency, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Historic Resources Survey historic context
statements.
41
There the examples of radio towers along Hollywood Boulevard, such as the
Pacific Warner Theater Radio Towers, and the El Capitan radio tower and neon sign are called
out. (Figure 2.2)

39
Author compiled a summary comparison of sign type definitions for the 2010 Hollywood SUD, the 2016 Historic
Broadway Sign SUD, and the NPS Preservation Brief No. 25 under appendix H. Additional columns can be added
to this comparison to include other public policy sign definitions such as the Hollywood Entertainment District
(HED) BID.
40
Hollywood SUD appendix F, Open Panel Roof Sign Definition, page 5.
41
Community Redevelopment Agency, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Historic Resources Survey context
statement, prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc., February 2010: 17,50,70, accessed
May 14, 2016, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.

30

Figure 2.2: Hollywood Boulevard looking west from Vine Street, 2014. Photo by author 2014.

It is noted here that while it is omitted as a sign type from the SUD, the language does not
imply or indicate that it was intentionally left out. There is evidence that sign types such as the
radio towers were not included as noted above, and therefore it might be concluded that the
public policy language is simply incomplete.
One can categorize missing sign types under the catch-all definition under the
Compliance Section 6, I, “Existing Signs.” An existing sign type is defined as a sign that was
permitted and was in conformance with the building code at the time of construction. This may
be a challenge for some older signs as the burden is on the owner to locate a valid City permit.
Existing signs without permits would be considered “non-conforming” signs.” This topic is more
fully discussed in chapter 3.

The Interpretation: Marquee Display Message Area
Interpreting the definitions and compliance requirements can be characterized with the
common phrase, “the devil is in the details.” The Vogue marquee digital conversion of the
message display area was complex and involved a lot of details as the City determined sign area
El Capitan Radio Tower Neon Sign
Pacific Warner
Theater Radio
Neon Signs
31

calculations. The City planners initially approved the owner’s application and agreed with the
applicant’s interpretation that the entire front of the marquee would be considered part of the
message display area. There was a disregard for the neon elements and raised lettering that a
conservationist would consider to be a character defining feature of this mid-century marquee.
The marquee conversion calculation approved by the City during the compliance review
was made using the entire area above the white message display area, and included the removal
of the blue area with neon and the red letters with neon. The photo below of the existing
condition of the marquee with a red outline of the white message display area that should have
been the only area used for the conversion calculation. (Figure 2.3)

Figure 2.3: Vogue Theater marquee, 2014. Photo captures existing conditions located at 6675 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California. Plastic changeable message display area. Author boxed in the area below the neon character
defining features to identify the sign area to appropriate be converted to digital display. Photo by author, 2014.

32

Other photos and digital display conversion design renderings were compiled by the
author, obtained from public records during the City’s compliance review process, to visually
illustrate the marquee conversion interpretation before and after the appeal by Hollywood
Heritage, Inc. (Figure 2.4)

Figure 2.4: Vogue Theater marquee digital conversion plans, 2015. This figure shows the various renderings of
the signage calculations, and the compromise of the proposed conversion from existing conditions to final
outcome depicting the changes to keep character-defining features of the sign. Author used source information
from appendix S, Los Angeles City Planning website, plans accessed, May 14, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MjAyMzc20.

The Compromise
Despite the fact that this storefront had been identified in 1997 as a contributor to the
Historic Hollywood Neon District, it did not trigger a historic review by the Office of Historic
Resources. It is likely that this resource was also identified in the more recent SurveyLA
inventory, but these findings have not yet been published and also do not trigger a historic
review. The permit review process for a sign conversion under the Hollywood SUD only
requires a simple review to determine if the sign or property is considered historic. The second
33

consideration is how to calculate the existing sign area to then calculate the new digital sign area
and dimensions.
Utilizing the author’s thesis research and draft comments, Hollywood Heritage, a local
advocacy organization, submitted an appeal letter to the City on July 14, 2015. This appeal
resulted in a compromise with the owner to recalculate the sign area and re-design the
conversion. The outcome was an overall reduction from 442.75 sq. ft. to 317.49 sq. ft. The owner
lost 125.26 sq. ft. of sign area but in the interest of time, where additional time equals increased
costs, decided this would be acceptable outcome. Although it was a preservation success, it did
not change the City’s findings relating to the historic status, and the project remained
categorically exempt from environmental review. The marquee digital display conversion
initially approved by City planners allowed the removal of the Vogue letters and neon elements
and considered these to be part of the message display in its conversion area calculation.
42

The owner revised the design and supported the conservation of the neon and other
character defining features of the sign that would have been irreversibly demolished if
Hollywood Heritage did not intervene with an appeal. This project has not yet been completed
and the owner has also agreed in a conversation with Hollywood Heritage to retain portions of
the white plastic message display to be available for future materials research.
43

The appeal challenged two main points. One, the definition of “historic,” and two, the
flawed interpretation of what should be considered a character-defining feature of a marquee.
Below are figures compiled side by side depicting the compromise. Each of the individual
renderings are also attached in appendix S.

42
Appendix S, DIR-2015-620-SPP and DIR-2015-620-SPP-1A, Exhibit A, thesis pages 431-442.
43
Author in discussion with Christy McAvoy, Hollywood Heritage, Inc. Founder, Los Angeles, October 2015.
34

The most recent Los Angeles sign use district approved in 2016 was the Historic
Broadway Sign Supplemental Use District in the Downtown Los Angeles area. The new SUD
lists similar types of signs that are found in the Hollywood SUD, but has one particular new
technology and sign type defined as Illuminated Projection Sign.
44
This is an image projected
onto the façade of a building. An entire page of the ordinance was dedicated to explaining the
use and intent of this technology.
45
As time marches on, the need to update public policy relating
to signage is a challenge. Even when a type of sign has been defined and technology has been
considered in the policy language, interpretations of these applications can be prove to be murky
as demonstrated in the Vogue Theater marquee message display digital conversion.

The Role of the Historic Resource Survey and Other Regulatory Reviews
A historic resource survey is part of the preservation process. The survey is intended to
locate and describe resources potentially to be saved.
46
The second step of a survey involves the
creation of a database populated with information gathered by competent professionals.
47
All
public policy relies on the definition of what is considered to be historic. Usually these
definitions reference historic resource surveys or reviews conducted by a government agency,
and a professional that meets the National Park Service, Archeology and Historic Preservation,
Secretary of Interior’s Qualification Standards and Guidelines, Professional Qualification
Standards.
48
In Hollywood, the following is a list and description of such surveys that have been
conducted. These are the surveys that should be included in every cultural resource compliance
review. (Table 2.1)

44
City of Los Angeles, Historic Broadway Sign Supplemental Use District (SUD) Ordinance No. 184856, accessed
May 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0020_ORD_184056_3-9-16.pdf.
45
Historic Broadway SUD Ordinance No 184856, excerpt on projection technology explained and illustrated in
section 9.10, page 23.
46
Robert E. Stipe, A Richer Heritage, Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina, 2003), 29.
47
Stipe, A Richer Heritage, Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, 30.
48
National Park Service, Archeology and Historic Preservation, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
Guidelines, “Professional Qualification Standards,” accessed June 18, 2016, https://www.nps.gov/history/local-
law/arch_stnds_9.htm.
35

Name of survey Description
Hollywood Historic
Survey
This survey/inventory was conducted from 1978 to 1980 with the
purpose of nominating the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial
and Entertainment District to the National Register of Historic
Places. Survey records are located at Hollywood Heritage in
Hollywood. The survey was utilized to identify contributors to
the historic district and survey results were codified as part of the
district’s acceptance to the National Register of Historic Places in
1985.
49

Historic Resource
Survey: Community
Redevelopment
Agency, Hollywood
Redevelopment Area
CRA/LA surveys of Hollywood, both reconnaissance and
intensive level, have been conducted over the years starting in
1986 with subsequent surveys conducted in 1997, 2003, 2008
and 2009.
50

SurveyLA SurveyLA is a comprehensive citywide historic resources survey
administered by the Office of Historic Resources. Surveys have
been conducted over approximately the last decade and utilized
standardized methodology and technology to identify and
evaluate potential historic resources against federal, state, and
local eligibility criteria. Resources identified in SurveyLA area
are subject to CEQA review if a project is subject to
discretionary action by the City Planning Department.
Cultural Affairs
Department Historic
Hollywood Neon
District Survey
This Hollywood Neon District sign survey was completed by the
Cultural Affairs Department as part of the Historic Wilshire
Neon Sign Corridor inventory in 1997. The results were
approved by the Mayor and City Council.
51
Research indicates
that this Neon District was never codified as a Historic district,
nor local Historic-Cultural Monuments.
Hollywood Historic
Preservation Overlay
Zone Surveys:
Whitely Heights HPOZ,
Melrose Hill HPOZ,
Sunset Square HPOZ
This is a local designation for related resources in a particular
area. Once established with a list of contributors there is a HPOZ
Board review that monitors and evaluates individual historic
resources within the boundaries of its HPOZ. The existing
Hollywood HPOZs are located inside the Hollywood Community
Plan Boundaries, but outside of the thesis boundaries.

49
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, Hollywood Boulevard
Commercial and Entertainment District, Item 6, Representation in Existing Surveys, Hollywood Historic Survey
1978-1980, Depository of Survey Records at Hollywood Heritage, Inc., accessed May 14, 2016,
http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/85000704.pdf
50
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc, Community Redevelopment Agency, Historic Resource
Survey, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, Introduction, accessed May 11, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.
51
Michael Holland, e-mail message to author, March 9, 2016. A list of neon signs was identified in a copy of the
entire Council File 97-2081, an attachment to an e-mail text message from Michael Holland, LA City Archivist, to
the author on March 9, 2016 in response to author’s request to obtain public documents under council file archives.
This Council File containing information about the Historic Hollywood Neon District is attached as appendix G.
36

Table 2.1: Hollywood historic resource survey summary. HPOZs are included should any new HPOZs be identified
within the thesis boundaries, should this study is utilized as a future reference document.

Each one of these reviews relies on a definition of “historic” and the findings determine
how the City of Los Angeles Sign Ordinance and the Hollywood SUD treat historic signs.
Hollywood has been the subject of least many surveys that would potentially identify a sign as a
historic resource. Yet, most of these surveys do not specifically call out the signage. In the past,
there may have been some reliance on the fact that the signage was part of the building.
However, the example of the 1954 Musso & Frank Grill Rooftop Neon Sign illustrates that this
may create different interpretations of what qualifies as a character-defining feature of a
designated or eligible historic resource. Likewise, the Vogue remodel and neon signage was
classified as not historic because the Cultural Affairs Department Neon Sign survey was never
codified.
Some additional confusion stems from the recent SurveyLA historic resources survey
because it only focused on areas that had not been previously designated. This left a gap in the
Hollywood historic district, since it was not resurveyed. The district is due for an update in its
period of significance, boundaries, and contributors, but that was not in the purview of
SurveyLA. Another consideration is the fact that signs were not originally called out as part of
the initial 1978-1980 Hollywood Historic Survey for the existing Historic district. Los Angeles
HCMs, California and National Register designations may or may not have specifically included
signs due to period of significance limitations or oversight. After reviewing the LA HCM list
there are thirteen specifically named historic signs, and only a few others that trigger compliance
reviews independent of the building.
Without updates to these surveys and registers to specifically include signage, the result
is that a loophole is created in the historic inventory. This coupled with eligible signs that may be
attached to non-eligible buildings, or those that have been deemed non-contributors, need to be
separated out as eligible resources apart from the building and individually designated. Without
this, there is potential for irreversible change and loss of historic sign materials. One remedy to
close this loophole is to implement a stand-alone historic sign program survey that would include
a review and evaluation of signs independent to their associated buildings.

37

Public policy also relies on regulatory review findings in addition to historic surveys to
determine a resources’ historic status. Below is a table that lists three types of regulatory reviews
that may result in findings that change the historic status of a resource. These findings are
codified in a parcel planning document that is typically conveyed with the property. (Table 2.2)
Regulatory
review
Description
Office of
Historic
Resources
and CRA
Demolition
Requests
The OHR reviews building demolition requests. Within the Hollywood
Redevelopment Project Area, “Hollywood Heritage took legal action regarding
the lack of a design review component of the CRA plan for Hollywood as
promised in the original Redevelopment Plan. As a result of that legal action,
Hollywood Heritage had been working with the CRA representatives in an
advisory capacity in regards to the application and granting of demolition
permits and to resolve the status of plans and surveys.
52
The findings may
facilitate conservation options including historic designation nominations,
relocation, mitigation plans, or a mandated historic resource survey report.
Project
Specific
CEQA / EIR
(Public
Resources
code 21000
et seq.)
California has broad environmental policies that require state and/or local
agencies to evaluate, mitigate, and publically disclose environmental effects of
projects before taking action. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
state or local public lead agency reviews are conducted as part of a proposed
development project that triggers City discretionary reviews through an
environmental impact review process and is conducted on all buildings that are
older than forty-five years of age. The Office of Historic Resources serves as
the expert for assessment. If a determination is made that there may be a
significant impact on a cultural/historic resource(s) then the public lead agency
prepares an Environmental Impact Report (EIR.) The draft and final EIR
determinations of effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives may trigger
future historic reviews, surveys, or specific historic resource designations.
53,54

Project
Specific
NEPA / EIS
and the
Section 106
Review
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) It is similar to CEQA but
applies only to federal agencies and requires that the federal agency prepare an
environmental impact statement. Section 106 refers to a historic resource
review triggered by a federal agency involvement.
55
For example, the Federal
Transit Administration’s role in the Redline Metro project in Hollywood.
Table 2.2: Hollywood historic resource regulatory review summary.

52
Hollywood Heritage, Policies and Procedures, CRA, accessed June 18, 2016,
http://www.hollywoodheritage.org/#!policies-and-procedures/c6ll.
53
Albert I. Herson and Gary A. Lucks, California Environmental Law and Policy, a practical guide (Point Arena,
California, Solano Press Books,2008), 27.
54
Hollywood Redevelopment Project historic resources field surveying was divided between two the teams and was
conducted between September 10, 2008 and February 2, 2009. All properties 45 years of age or older were included
in the survey, as well as a few properties younger than 45 years of age that appeared to have exceptional
significance. CRA Survey prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc., February 2010,
accessed May 14, 2016, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf.
55
Albert I. Herson and Gary A. Lucks, California Environmental Law and Policy, a Practical Guide, Point Arena,
CA, Solano Press Books, 43-44.
38

Materials Matter
The replacement of the white plastic message display panel in the Vogue Theater
marquee was overlooked by the City. However, conservationists view this as a potential loss of
historic materials. It is important to call out these irreversible material losses when negotiating a
compromise, and request that samples be retained for future study. Ideally the samples are stored
onsite to avoid the misplacement of materials. The invention of certain materials and their use in
signs such as neon, plastic, and types of metals is an important area of study and have been
referenced in Los Angeles and Hollywood historic context statements by qualified architectural
historians. The study of materials goes beyond the scope of this thesis but is discussed further in
the treatment of signs in chapter 4.

Reversibility in Conservation to Manage Change
Reversibility is a key concept in conservation. This concept is applied to changes in
technology relating to historic signs and is critical.
56
This is illustrated in the Vogue Theater
marquee display sign digital conversion case study reviewed above. The compromise resulted in
a reversible change with some loss of historic materials. This should have been the initial
interpretation, and possibly would have been, had the Historic Hollywood Neon District been
properly codified into the city planning records. The Los Angeles Department of Cultural
Affairs, the only department overseeing historic resources at the time in Los Angeles, was
authorized in a motion adopted on November, 20, 1997 to use $420,000 from the CRA budget to
restore and maintain twenty-one of the identified neon signs using the “commercial façade”
enhancement Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) mitigation funds, and additional
funds for signs outside of the CRA area from the Arts and Cultural Facilities Trust Fund.
57

The approved communication related to this motion referenced and identified a Historic
Hollywood Neon District that included a map with identified and plotted historic sign resources,
a copy of a ten-year covenant agreement template for the repair, maintenance and operation of

56
Barbara Appelbaum, "Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility," Journal of the American Institute for Conservation,
26 (2). [Maney Publishing, American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works] (1987): 65–73,
accessed April 2015, Jstor doi:10.2307/3179456.
57
Michael Holland, e-mail message to author, March 9, 2016. Council File 97-2081, an attachment to an e-mail text
message from Michael Holland, LA City Archivist, to the author on March 9, 2016 in response to author’s request to
obtain public documents under council file archives. This Council File and communication is attached as appendix
G, thesis pages 191-194.
39

twenty-four historic neon signs.
58
The summary of this communication relating to these twenty-
four signs included that the City would fund the restoration of twenty-one signs and additionally,
“reimburse property owners for restoration costs of three signs, not to exceed $27,000.00 per
sign.”
59

The November 4, 1997 report from the City Administrative Officer included a
description of the Historic Hollywood Neon District. This district was to be bounded by Franklin
Avenue, La Brea Avenue, Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard as Attachment 1 to the
memo and is attached to this thesis as appendix G. After reviewing the entire council file, the
author compiled a table of these signs below. (Table 2.3)
What is notable after an analysis of the current status of each historic sign under ZIMAS
is that eight of the signs still do not trigger historic preservation review, and it is unclear how
four others would be interpreted by the City during a permit compliance review using the criteria
set forth under the Hollywood SUD.

Historic
Review
(ZIMAS)
LA
HCM
HSUD
or
Citywide Resource Name Street Address HHSD '97 NOTES
Yes HSUD Lido 6500 Yucca
Street
Eligible Historic Review
Under (2S2 HUD)
Yes HSUD Halifax Hotel 6376 Yucca
Street
Contributor Historic Review
Under 1S and 2S2
(HUD and NPS)
Yes Citywide YMCA 1553 N Schrader
Boulevard
Eligible Historic Review
Under (2S2 HUD)
Yes Citywide Montecito 6650 Franklin
Ave
Contributor Historic Review
Under (1S and 2S2
537.9-19-0168)
Yes -
HBCED
Only
HSUD Frolic Room 6245 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor* Unclear if
considered Historic
under SUD or EIR
Definitions: Not
original to Pantages
and outside Period
of Sign 1915-1939
for National District
and not mentioned in
nomination

58
See appendix G, communication memo, thesis pages 191-194, CF – 97-2081, City archive file emailed at
attachment from Michael Holland, City Archivist to author on March 9, 2016.
59
Ibid.
40

Yes -
HBCED
Only
HSUD Newberry School of
Beauty
6522 Hollywood
Boulevard Alley
Contributor* Non-Contributor
Building
Yes -
HBCED
Only
HSUD Vogue 6629 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor* Sign Compliance
Review Findings
Non-contributor
bldg. and Marquee,
Determined Not-
Historic See
appendix S
Yes Citywide Hollywood Tower /
La Belle Tour
6200 Franklin
Ave
Contributor Historic Review 1S
and 2D3 for 537.9-
19-0005
Yes 545
HSUD
Cinegrill 7000 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor* Not clear if Cinegrill
included in
Roosevelt Historic
Status
Yes 495
HSUD
El Capitan 6834 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes 545
HSUD
Hollywood
Roosevelt Hotel
7000 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes
HSUD
Musso & Frank 6663 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor
Yes 316 HSUD Stromberg Jewelers
Clock
6439 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor
Yes 572
HSUD
Pacific Theater -
Warner
6423 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes
Citywide
Hotel
Knickerbocker
1714 Ivar
Avenue
Contributor

Yes 664
HSUD
The Broadway
6300-6316
Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes 666
HSUD
Taft Bldg. 1648-1680 Vine
Street, 6280-
6290 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes 193
HSUD
Pantages 6233 Hollywood
Boulevard
Contributor

Yes 616 Citywide Trianon 1750 N Serrano
Ave
Contributor
Yes 593
HSUD
Max Factor 1666 Highland
Avenue, 6922
Hollywood
Boulevard
Eligible
Yes 134 HSUD Crossroads of the
World
6671 Sunset
Boulevard
Eligible
Yes 842 Citywide Ojai 1929 Whitley
Avenue
Eligible
Yes 882 Citywide Fontenoy 1811 N. Whitley
Avenue
Eligible
41

Yes HSUD Mayfair 1760 North
Wilcox Avenue
Eligible
Yes 665 HSUD Plaza Hotel 1633 Vine Street Eligible
Yes 768 Citywide Ravenswood 570 N Rossmore
Ave
Eligible
Yes 309 Citywide El Royale 450 N Rossmore
Ave
Eligible
No Citywide Castle Arglye 1919 Argyle Ave Contributor
No Citywide Alto Nido 1851 Ivar Contributor Small Sign on Pole -
Need to check if
rooftop or other
No Amor Arms Hotel
Apartments
1759 Orchid Eligible
No Citywide Mark Twain 1622 Wilcox
Ave
Eligible
No Citywide Hollywood Wilcox
Hotel
6500 Selma Eligible Demolished Wilcox
Hotel Sign, maybe
using structure for
New Mama Shelter
Neon Sign
No Citywide Hotel Gilbert 1550 N Wilcox
Avenue
Eligible
No Citywide Vista Theater 4473 Sunset
Drive
Eligible
No Citywide
Citizen's News
1545 Wilcox
Avenue
Eligible
Table Research Notes:
Boundaries: Franklin Avenue, La Brea Avenue, Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard
Boundary Note: Probably meant to go one block south of Hollywood Boulevard as indicated on their map to sunset
California Historical Resource Status Codes Definitions Included Table:
60

1S: Individual property listed in National Register (NR) by the Keeper. Listed in the California Register(CR).
2D3: Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.
2S2: Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR.
Table Key:
Historic Hollywood Neon District (HHND):
Contributor:
Identified as contributor within the boundaries described in the City Admin Report Dated November, 4, 1997
Eligible:
Identified as contributor on Map or in file, but may fall outside of the boundaries as described in Report dated
November 4, 1997
HBCED: Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District
(HSUD) Hollywood Signage Use Supplemental District Boundaries or (citywide) sign district
Findings:
Note (1): District with boundaries still maintains 100 percent as defined in 1997
Note (2): District with amended boundaries and added signs per City Council File Summary per map has lost one of
thirty-five
Note (3): Eight have no historic review
Note (4): Four contributors* are uncertain as to interpretation by City if historic by definition
Table 2.3: Historic Hollywood Neon District list of contributors. The summary and findings were compiled by
author. Eligible contributors identified in CF-97-2081, see appendix G.

60
California Office of Historic Resource Status Codes, accessed June 18, 2016,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf
42

Research and review of the City Council File No. 97-2081 states that there were twenty-
four historic neon signs that were eligible to participate in a ten-year agreement for repair,
maintenance and operation with the CAD. There is no one list that clearly identifies which of the
thirty-five listed in the above Table 2.2 are those twenty-four. Utilizing the stated boundaries
described above in the November 4, 1997 CF-2081, sixteen of these thirty-five historic sign
resources fall outside of what will be referenced in this thesis as the initial Historic Hollywood
Neon District boundaries. Fifteen of those identified are outside of the Hollywood SUD. This
means that these fifteen would be subject to the Citywide ordinances which generally has less
favorable treatment for historic signs.
An example of this would be the Mark Twain Hotel rooftop sign: 1) This sign is located
outside the Hollywood SUD boundaries, and is adjacent to the Hollywood Commercial and
Entertainment Historic district; 2) This property is not eligible to be a Historic district building
contributor as it is outside its boundaries; 3) It is not listed as an LA HCM; and 4) There is no
historic status evident as a result of its contributing status to the Historic Hollywood Neon
District, and the owner’s ten-year covenant agreement expired in 2007.
Finally, according to Zoning Information Management Systems (ZIMAS), the City
planning records online site, there is no other trigger for any historic preservation review. If a
sign permit application was filed now, the review would indicate that it would not be eligible for
any historic regulation exceptions relating to conformance. Rehabilitation efforts would be
subject to current municipal zone conforming codes. This may result in a take-down of a historic
sign to repair it without the ability to reattach it in the same manner because the support structure
would not be in compliance with current building and safety codes. This is why many historic
resources are allowed to follow the California State Historic Building code discussed later in
chapter 4.
43

Figure 2.5: Vogue Theater marquee, and the Mark Twain Hotel and Rooftop Neon Sign, 2014. Photos by author.
Summary and location map by author, 2016. GIS Data, “Permission for use of these proprietary data is granted by
the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Copyright © 2015 City of Los Angeles. All Rights
Reserved,” (LADCP). Map created by author using QGIS program, 2016. GNU General Public License, Version 2,
June 1991, Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
02111-1307, USA; and OpenStreetmap.

It is unclear as to why this loophole still exists, but there is an opportunity to create a
separate and distinct historic sign program that would include the resources already identified in
the Historic Hollywood Neon District.
Other Considerations
Other Cities such as Tucson and Burbank realized that their City codes and ordinances
had similar loopholes and found their call to action after suffering the loss of a local historic sign.
Signs include more than just neon. The study of sign types, descriptions, and discussion of
44

terminologies such as on and off-site advertising goes beyond the scope of this thesis and has
been well-documented and discussed in many surveys, context statements, books, city
ordinances, and the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief No. 25.
The legal considerations of free speech, commercial speech as applied to historic signs
and other such legal discussions also warrant further study by the heritage conservation
community, specifically when reconstructing historic signs and conserving signs that may
challenge a cultural context. Stephen R. Miller, a land use and environmental attorney and legal
professor outlines an argument on this topic that suggests sign preservation will be “reigned in as
it encroaches on others rights,” and that there are limitations to historic sign preservation and that
the “ability to reuse a sign for a different use is not as evident as with a building, as a building
can often change its use without substantial alterations.”
61

In practice, city attorneys and city planners grapple with two key topics when drafting
historic sign ordinances. One is the conformance of an existing sign, and second is the issue of
participation status, voluntary or non-voluntary historic designations.
62
In Los Angeles, and
therefore Hollywood, local HCM designations are non-voluntary.
The following chapter will summarize the benefits and challenges of voluntary vs. non-
voluntary participation under an existing Historic Landmark Sign program in Tucson, and a
proposed historic sign program in Burbank.

61
Stephen R. Miller, "HISTORIC SIGNS, COMMERCIAL SPEECH, AND THE LIMITS OF PRESERVATION."
Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 25, no. 2 (2010): 227-63, accessed June 12, 2016,
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/42843035. The author builds upon the fundamentals described in NPS
Preservation Briefs, the Learning from Las Vegas study, US Case law, City Planning references, and other resources
to draw conclusions on historic preservation and sign regulations in the United States.
62
Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D. (Historic Preservation Officer, City of Tucson) in discussion with the author, October 21,
2015; and Amanda Landry, MURP (Associate Planner, City of Burbank) in discussion with the author, April 26-30,
2015.
45

Chapter 3: Stand-Alone Citywide Historic Sign Programs: Benefits and Challenges

There are two stand-alone historic sign programs in the United States, the Tucson,
Arizona Historic Landmark Sign program, and the Burbank, California historic sign ordinance
and program.
63
Each of these programs are unique and offer insight as to the future of historic
sign programs. Below is a review of each program, and an overall analysis of the benefits and
challenges that Hollywood can consider for historic sign conservation best practices.

City of Tucson, Arizona: Historic Landmark Sign Program
64

The City of Tucson, Arizona’s Historic Landmark Sign (HLS) Program, Ordinance No.
10903, was adopted and codified into the Tucson, Arizona Municipal code in 2011 creating the
first stand-alone historic sign program in the United States. A copy of this ordinance is attached
as part of appendix P.
65

Most other historic sign ordinances are codified within an existing city historic
preservation ordinance and treated as an extension or character-defining feature of a historic
building, or as an historic structure or object. The HLS, a voluntary program, was created to fill
in sign ordinance gaps that created loopholes for historic signs. The program tackled the non-
conforming sign repair loopholes in the Tucson 1980 sign ordinance. As is the case of many
conservation efforts, this movement to update the sign ordinance was in response to, and
prompted by, a specific historic sign in Tucson that was threatened with demolition by neglect,
yet in an unintended way.

63
Ibid. Other than the 2011 adopted Tucson, Arizona, Historic Landmark Sign program, Tucson and Burbank
historic sign program preventatives stated that they were unaware of any other adopted program in the United States
of America, with similar features to the HLS program, at the time of discussion. Subsequently, Burbank City
Council adopted its historic sign ordinance and program in May 2016. Details of the Burbank historic sign program
are discussed later in this chapter.
64
There are bolded terms in this section to highlight the elements of the Tucson stand-alone HLS program, such
that the reader is clear as to the issues related to these terms within the context of its historic sign program. The
author references these terms later in a recommendation outlined in the conclusion of the thesis.
65
Research suggests that the City of Tucson Arizona HLS program is the first “stand alone” Historic Sign program
in the United States. Tucson Preservation Officer, Jonathan Mabry stated that to his knowledge there were no other
“stand alone” programs that they were aware of at the time they created the HLS program. While they did look to
other city sign ordinances that included elements of Historic Sign language, they did not model the program as a
whole on any other program. Phone interview with Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D., Tucson, Arizona, Historic Preservation
Officer, October 21, 2015.
46

[Owners] of the Diving Girl Neon Sign waited to spiff up the diving lady [when] they
bought the former Pueblo Hotel building in 1991. They [had] wanted to restore the neon
sign,...but they were stopped by an arcane city sign code that did not allow building
owners to take down old signs, fix them up, and put them back up. Leaving signs up in
disrepair was acceptable. It was a Catch-22: leave old signs up or take them down
without being allowed to put them back up. The City Council revised a sign code June 28
to allow restoration of battered and rusting historic signs.

“This sign is the poster child for the revision of the sign ordinance,” said Jonathan
Mabry, the city’s historic preservation officer. “These are the visual landmarks of our
community that really connect us to our post-World War II past. That was the period
when Tucson growth exploded. We’re starting to gain an appreciation for the historic
value of mid-20th century structures” … The owners are spending about $25,000 to
restore the diving lady.”
66

The Ordinance included a purpose statement to, “protect the community from
inappropriate reuse of nonconforming and/or illegal signs.” The key unique benefits and features
that have possible application to historic signs include new sign type definitions, owner
participatory financial incentives, a historic sign treatment plan, sign area rights bonus language,
and a specific acknowledgment and consent waiver to address agreed items such as the
demolition stay of thirty days. A copy of the Tucson Acknowledgement and Consent form
template to waive partial legal property owner rights, Treatment Plan Template, and
Ordinance can be found in the attached documents located in appendix P.
67

The HLS has a definition section that outlines three types of signs: Classic HLS,
Transitional HLS, and Replica HLS as noted below

Classic HLS. A Historic Landmark Sign originally installed prior to 1961 at a location
that is within the current Tucson city limits.
Transitional HLS. A Historic Landmark Sign originally installed between 1961 and 1974
inclusive at a location that is within the current Tucson city limits.
Replica HLS. An accurate reconstruction of an original sign that no longer exists. The
sign to be replicated must have been originally installed prior to 1961 at a location that is
within the current Tucson city limits.
68

66
Teya Vitu, “Bright Lights Coming Back to Diving Lady Sign,” Downtown Tucsonan, March 15, 2012, accessed
November 28, 2014, http://www.downtowntucson.org/2012/03/bright-lights-coming-back-to-diving-lady-sign/.
Downtown Tucson Partnership was created to implement Tucson Business Improvement District (BID) services.
67
There was a ballot called Prop 207 that addressed private property right owner rights to not have the city devalue
their property. The program waiver addresses this city liability. Cite: codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 12-1134.
Phone interview with Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D., Tucson, Arizona, Historic Preservation Officer, October 21, 2015.
68
Tucson HLS Program Documents as attached in appendix P.
47

This way of identifying a type of sign specific to a time period is a context definition with
a period of significance, rather than a description of the sign itself. The HLS ordinance goes on
to add a definition for Historic Landmark Sign Character Defining Features that specifically calls
out the, “physical features…such as materials, technologies, structure, colors, shapes, symbols,
text, font/typography and/or art that have cultural and historical significance and are integral to
overall sign design.”
69

The HLS adds a definition of an “As Is” HLS designation to clarify that the sign will not
be restored/repaired, reused or relocated. These signs are in working order and can be
designated, but there is a condition that the owner must also approve the HLS Treatment Plan.
The issuance of a final permit is not required for the “As Is” designation.
There is a section on HLS Conditional Designation that is tied to either the Tucson
Administrative code or the Legislative Code as a matter of process. The Final HLS designation is
contingent upon a sign permit in compliance with an approved HLS Treatment Plan, and a final
inspection within five years of the conditional HLS designation.
The HLS Designation Guidelines, Performance Requirements, and Treatment Plan are a
cohesive prescriptive plan that pin points how the city will identify, zone, and treat historic signs
in Tucson. The plan has elements of a community streetscape design plan in that it has very
specific requirement details by HLS sign type to support the “sense of place” outlined in the HLS
purpose statement. For example, below is an excerpt of the details for Relocation:

a. Relocation of a Classic or Transitional HLS shall be to a location within the original
premises, or to a location within an HLS Concentration.
b. Relocation of a Replica HLS shall be to a location within an HLS Concentration.
c. When relocated, detached HLS shall be setback at least 20 feet from the back of curb
(edge of pavement if there is no curb), no more than 40 feet from the future right-of-
way line of the street, and a distance at least two times the height of the sign from
any property with a non-commercial use.
d. If relocated to another premise, the HLS shall display conspicuous text or a plaque,
using a template provided by the City of Tucson, that indicates that the sign has
been relocated, the date of relocation, and the original location.
e. The scale and design of the sign to be relocated shall be compatible with
existing HLS in the vicinity of the proposed location.
70

69
HLS Ordinance, page 3, appendix P, thesis page 354.
70
HLS Ordinance, page 6, appendix P, thesis page 357.
48

The Treatment Plan has elements of environmental review in that it incorporates a
requirement that the owner submit a plan that is then vetted in a public forum to disclose to the
neighborhood a relocation or the construction of a replica sign, a safety review by the Tucson
Department of Transportation, and input from any relevant Historic Preservation Zone Advisory
Boards. Subsequent to those reviews and disclosures the Tucson-Pima County Historical
Commission reviews the Treatment Plan and then the City planners perform an analysis of
applicable policies of the Tucson General Plan. The outcome is a determination as to whether the
designation will result in an Administrative and Legislative codification as defined in the HLS
Ordinance below:

a. Administrative: The Planning & Development Services Director will prepare a written
decision to approve or deny the Treatment Plan within ten days of receiving the T-PCHC
Plans Review Subcommittee recommendation.
b. Legislative: The Planning & Development Services Director will prepare a written
recommendation to approve or deny the Treatment Plan within ten days of receiving the
T-PCHC Plans Review Subcommittee recommendation and forward it to the Mayor and
Council for a public hearing and decision at the earliest practical date. In granting approval,
the Mayor and Council must find that preservation of the sign will contribute to Tucson's
unique character, history, and identity.
71

Any future building permits and all maintenance will follow the Approved
Administrative Treatment Plan. This includes any proposed demolition or relocation that is,
“subject to a 30-day waiting period to facilitate the salvage of the sign.”
72

The financial incentives include a partial sign area bonus. The first permitted HLS sign
on a premises does not count toward the maximum total sign area in the General Business
District, the Industrial District, and the Pedestrian Business District. In a change of use scenario,
a nonconforming sign is able to perform reasonable repairs, but if moved, altered, removed,
reinstalled or replaced it must be brought up to compliance unless it is a HLS designated sign.
This saves owners the expense of having to bring an existing sign into modern compliance and
avoid the unintended take down of historic signs.

71
HLS Ordinance appendix P, page 9, thesis page 360.
72
HLS Ordinance appendix P, page 10, thesis page 361.
49

In addition, there was a fund established to help sign owners repair their HLS designated
signs. The sign owners would need to obtain repair/rehabilitation estimates and pay 25% of the
cost and agree to keep the sign for ten years. Part of the funding for this program was received as
an element of a HUD block grant to remedy blight. The trick was qualifying to meet the
definition of blight.
73

As part of this grant project Tucson targeted and identified a concentration of old signs
that would pre-qualify as blight for repair cost matching. It used a basic crowd source technique
much like the current National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), “This Place Matters”
campaign.
74
Individuals would just take pictures of the favorite signs and send them to the
Tucson Historic Preservation Office project manager.
75

To participate in the fund matching once a sign was determined eligible, an owner needed
to commit to keep the sign for ten years, and not sell until five years after the completed repairs.
The contract ran with the title and a property lien that gives the City a right to be repaid if the
owner sold before the five-year requirement.

City of Burbank, California: Historic Sign Program
Like the City of Tucson, the City of Burbank recognized that conservation efforts were
needed to address the preservation of a particular historic sign. The sign that was at risk was the
old Papoos Hot Dog Show sign that was later converted to an Umami Burger sign located at
4300 Riverside Drive. Initially, Burbank planning staff tried to help owners to conserve a small
amount of the historic sign, but ultimately due to costs the new owners were unable to save the
sign permanently.
76
This prompted the City of Burbank to find funding to initiate a historic sign

73
Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D. (Historic Preservation Officer, Tucson, Arizona), in discussion with author, October 21,
2015.
74
NTHP, “This place matters” national campaign website page, accessed May 14, 2016,
https://savingplaces.org/this-place-matters#.VzfNODbmqUk. The program includes crowd sourcing information
where individuals take a picture with a sign that states, this place matters, and use it as part of a social media
campaign to inspire awareness about places they care about. “This campaign isn’t just about photography. It’s about
telling the stories of the places we can’t live without. Through This Place Matters, [they] hope to encourage and
inspire an ongoing dialogue about the importance of place and preservation in all of our lives.”
75
Tucson used a similar thought process, albeit it pre-dated the NTHP “This Place Matters” campaign, and
instructed individuals to take pictures of signs that mattered to them in Tucson and then electronically send them to
Tucson City Planning Historic Preservation Officer Jonathan Mabry, Mabry in a discussion with author, October 21,
2015.
76
City of Burbank website, Council meeting Community Development Department, “Historic Sign Ordinance,
Project No. 14-0003761, Zone Text Amendment,” staff report, May 17, 2016, accessed May 17, 2016,
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=2304&meta_id=291436.
50

survey. In 2014, the Burbank Planning department was awarded a Certified Local Government
(CLG) grant of $18,000 by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to conduct a historic sign
resource survey and draft an ordinance.
77

Burbank hired an architectural conservation consulting firm, Architectural Resources
Group, that met the Secretary of Interior Standards, to research and prepare a context statement,
perform a windshield inventory of the eligible historic signs throughout the City of Burbank, and
assist with developing a voluntary, incentive based, historic sign preservation ordinance.
78

Burbank City planners drafted an initial ordinance that was completed and presented to
Burbank City Council on January 12, 2015. The draft ordinance outlined the Burbank Historic
Sign (HS) program, and like the Tucson Landmark Sign (HLS) program, it required a separate
historic resource historic sign register to be maintained, and required each designated historic
sign adopt and maintain a historic sign treatment plan as part of the program. The Burbank HS
program included new historic sign definitions and procedures. It outlined the Heritage
Commission review and recommendation that is followed by the City Council designation
approval. The outcome was a covenant that is recorded and then runs with land. The program
allowed non-conforming historic signs to be moved, repaired, altered, reinstalled or replaced
subject to the historic sign development standards. Lastly, the program included preservation
incentives that include sign area bonuses, and building permit fee waivers as financial incentives.
After various hearings, staff reports, City attorney recommendations and City council
discussion there was a motion at the April 7, 2015 City Council meeting to continue the historic
sign program approval process by asking Burbank City planners to amend the draft historic sign
ordinance to address three areas of concern;

1) Reduce the proposed building permit waiver fee cap to 5% or $2,500;
2) Remove the historic sign compulsory review resulting from a building permit variance
request; and

77
This hearing is an instructive meeting video that captures the intent of a Historic Sign Preservation program
prompted by the variance sought by the Umami burger purchase of the former Papoos Hotdog sign, and the issues
that City Council have relating to its various components including property owner rights and incentives. Amanda
Landry, Assistant Planner Report and Meeting Video, April 7, 2015,
http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id=6761&meta_id=255985, accessed May 8, 2016.
78
City of Burbank Community Development Department, Staff Report, May 17, 2016, City of Burbank website,
accessed May 31, 2016, http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7353&meta_id=292865.
51

3) Remove the “in perpetuity” designation.
79

The third amendment issue above revolved around a future owner’s requirement to return
to City Council to remove the historic sign designation. This was seen as a financial hardship for
businesses and a disincentive to attract future business operators to Burbank. Subsequent to the
April 7, 2015 City Council hearing, the City planners used the consultant’s report, context
statement, definitions and findings to develop the amended Burbank Historic Sign program
ordinance to address City Council concerns. On November 9, 2015 the Burbank City Planning
Commission, “adopt[ed] a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the [amended]
proposed Historic Sign Ordinance.” As part of the November 9, 2015 resolution, the Burbank
City Attorney provided an amended ordinance with the City Attorney’s Synopsis as Exhibit B
that was later re-dated and adopted unchanged, by City Council on May 24, 2016 as Exhibit A-1.
This ordinance and synopsis instructs the Burbank Planning department to add and amend the
Burbank Municipal code zone text to incorporate the Burbank historic sign ordinance. Copies of
the Burbank HS program documents are attached as appendix Q.
80

This final adopted Burbank City Planning amended ordinance did not alter the permit fee
waiver amounts. However, it did remove the permit variance compulsory review language,
which would have allowed Burbank City Planning, “staff to compel preservation of a potentially
historic sign if the age of the building was brought to issue in a variance application.”
81
Most
pointedly, the amended ordinance addressed the most debated concern about a future property
owner’s ability to remove a designated historic sign. Specifically, the amended program is a
voluntary program such that the owner must give written consent to process the designation
application.

79
Amended Motion, April 7, 2015, accessed May 8, 2016,
http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id=6761&meta_id=255985.
80
It appears that while Burbank City Planning provided a resolution that City Council adopt the Historic Sign
program, Burbank City Council has not yet passed a final ordinance, Burbank City Assistant Planner Christina
Michaelis advised author on May 11, 2016 that the amended ordinance will be on the May 17, 2016 City Council
Agenda. Additional research is required to review the status and codification of this Historic Sign Program that goes
beyond the scope of this thesis. Burbank Planning Commission Board Minutes, November 9, 2015, accessed May 8,
2016, http://burbankca.gov/departments/city-clerk-s-office/meeting-agendas-minutes.
81
City of Burbank, Community Development Department, Staff Report, May 17, 2016. See appendix Q.
52

The amended ordinance inserted a mechanism for the property owner to also have the
ability to remove the historic sign designation without returning to City Council, if after the
designation, the Burbank Heritage Commission finds that,
1. An attempt has been made to find a suitable donee for the sign.
2. No suitable donee site was able was available to be found and there are no other
economically feasible means to preserve the sign.
82

The Burbank ordinance also contains a detailed demolition clause that requires a
demolition to be consistent with an approved treatment plan for relocation subject to a stay that
has a maximum of thirty business days to facilitate salvage of the sign. However, no permit is
required if the Burbank Building Official certifies that a demolition is required to protect public
health or safety because of an unsafe condition.
83
Section, 10-1-943, Historic Sign Preservation
Incentives, outlines the following Burbank historic sign preservation incentives that includes sign
area bonus(s), and certain building permit fee waiver(s) as outlined below:

A. The purpose of this Section is to provide tangible incentives to property owners to
designate historic and iconic signs that are reflective of the unique character, history, and
identity of Burbank, and emphasizes that such resources should be altered only as
necessary to meet contemporary needs.
B. Incentives provided to historic signs 1. All Building Permit fees are waived for any
work related to the preservation, maintenance or restoration of the Historic Sign. 2. An
applicant may request deferral of payment of Building Permit fees for any property with a
Historic Sign from the Director. 3. All Building Permit fees for a property with a Historic
Sign shall be reduced by ten percent, with a maximum fiscal year cap of $5,000 per
property. 4. The maximum allowed sign area for a property with a Historic Sign shall be
increased by ten percent. 5. The square footage of a Historic Sign does not count towards
the maximum allowable signage allowed on a property. However, for properties with
historic signs, proposed new signage must be reviewed by the Community Development
Department to determine that it will not detrimentally affect the historic integrity of the
Historic Sign and must otherwise comply with all other applicable development
standards.
84

82
City Council argued that future private building owners may not want to preserve a historic sign and suggested a
sunset clause for the historic designation. This termination clause was inserted to address the concerns and was in
lieu of a sunset clause on the designation that was discussed as an alternative at the April 7, 2015 hearing, City
Council hearing video, accessed May 15, 2016,
http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7049.
83
Burbank Municipal Code section, 10-1-934; Duty to Maintain Structures and Premises,
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/?Burbank10/Burbank100109.html#10-1-934.
84
Burbank Historic Sign Preservation Incentives, 10-1-943, see appendix Q, exhibit A, staff report, thesis page 366.
53

In addition to the above incentives, the provision for non-conforming designated historic
signs under the amended continuation of use is considered a preservation incentive. It allows
repairs to be made subject to historic sign development standards. Lastly, there is a California
Environmental Quality Act exemption clause that allows for the repairs and rehabilitation of
historic signs under this ordinance if done to the required standards. This is an incentive for an
owner or developer to utilize the historic designation process outlined in the Burbank HS
program to identify and mitigate any negative development impacts.

Benefits and Challenges of “Stand-Alone” Citywide Historic Programs
The benefits and challenges of the “stand alone” citywide historic sign programs are
instructive. The clear benefits for both the Tucson and the Burbank programs includes the
citywide historic sign surveys and registers dedicated to identifying the historic sign resources,
the specific financial incentives to repair and maintain historic signs, and the sign rights and area
bonus clauses that were added to encourage the retention of the historic signs.
The challenge that both program representatives identified during interviews included the
need for their programs to be voluntary. Both are based on voluntary participation. Burbank
originally considered a ten-year sunset clause to address owner concerns, but ultimately settled
on the ability for the owner to terminate the designation. Both programs stemmed from the threat
of a non-conforming historic sign being lost or neglected due to the outdated sign ordinances that
prohibited the repairs and reinstallation of a non-conforming sign. Both programs remedied this
loophole.
Unlike in Tucson, property owners in Burbank or Hollywood need to consider the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This law is something that triggers a compliance
review for historic signs in California attached to non-historic buildings that may not otherwise
be triggered if the building itself is not designated as a qualified historic resource. There is a
Categorical Exemption adopted by Burbank City Planning to alleviate this concern. In addition,
the owners can possibly terminate the designation as described in the Burbank section above.
While this is not an ideal compromise, it provided an additional review process that requires an
effort by the owner to find a conservation solution prior to any historic sign demolition.
The Tucson stand-alone Historic Landmark Sign Program is a model for other historic
sign conservation programs because of the comprehensive elements it contains. These elements
54

have a higher level of detail at both the intake and maintenance level, such that these components
can be used as a baseline for other historic sign programs.
The Tucson program elements include: 1) a unique sign designation application and
checklist that includes information needed to document the existing conditions. It includes
details such as materials, permits, photographs, and GPS coordinates. 2) Another key component
of the Tucson program is the waiver and consent form that allows public access to the historic
sign prior to demolition and is acknowledged with a required signature by the owner. Tucson’s
application checklist brings a straight forward understanding of the existing and proposed
treatment of a historic sign at the beginning of the process. In completing the application, the
owner is apt to gain new awareness of how to be a better historic sign steward. 3) It ties the fund
matching to a required voluntary contract with the city that requires the owner to maintain the
sign for a certain period of time in exchange for the financial incentive. It is important to tether
the financial incentives to the historic resource on a long-term basis since the program is
voluntary. 4) The Tucson program also provides a manual available through the Tucson Historic
Preservation Office.
85
It is important that the historic resource owners, developers, and city
planners rely on preservation planners to guide them through the historic sign application and
treatment process, such that any required permit compliance review interpretations are more
likely to encourage conservation practices as a priority over any other interpretation that might
allow an irreversible loss. The Vogue Theater discussed in chapter 2 is an example of such an
interpretation.
A Hollywood stand-alone historic sign program should be modeled from the Tucson HLS
program, and informed by the recently adopted Burbank ordinance to incorporate the certain key
elements identified as benefits in this thesis. Most importantly a stand-alone historic sign
program should include the following key components; a historic sign survey, a separate historic
sign register, economic incentives, a demolition stay, and a required sign treatment plan.

85
An added benefit would be to track the yes/no answers to these questions for future assessment from the Summary
Checklist and pre-submittal information checklist. Over time, there could be an analysis based on this data to
improve the program.
55

Chapter 4: Conservation of Historic Signs in Hollywood Today

Once a sign resource is identified as historic, and meets the public policy definition of
“historic,” the historic resource’s physical location will determine the applicable public policy
reviews, regulations, and financial incentives.

Ordinances and Public Policies
Municipalities, such as the City of Los Angeles, rely on public policy to articulate and
enforce rules and regulations that govern the area within its boundaries. The municipal code
utilizes basic codes, zoning and unified development codes, and ordinance codification in
concert to provide the public and governing bodies a clear understanding of the public policy
definitions, rights and procedures. The City of Los Angeles utilizes a basic municipal code.
86

The City then codifies any updates that result from new ordinances, City planning directives, or
other legal updates. Codification is the process of, “removing repealed or obsolete ordinances
and editing for proper grammar, consistency, and clarity. Codifying also encompasses formatting
the material into user-friendly titles, chapters, and sections, and supplementing with new
ordinances. The result is one body of current, enforceable law.”
87

Various different ordinances and planning directives are discussed in this section. To
visually articulate the overlapping jurisdictions, the author has created a QGIS map utilizing the
following eight public policy data files, with shapefiles, sourced from the City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning that exist within the thesis boundaries. (Figure 4.1)
• Residential Historic Preservation Overlay Zones
• Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments
• Hollywood Community Redevelopment Area Boundaries
• Hollywood Signage Supplement Use District
• Hollywood Entertainment District, Business Improvement District
• Sunset and Vine, Business Improvement District
• Hollywood Community Plan Area
• Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment Historic District
Boundaries, listed on the National Register for Historic Places

86
A basic municipal code is an organization of local legislation by subject matter from general to specific.
87
American Legal Publishing Corporation. Why Codify, accessed May 11, 2016,
http://www.amlegal.com/codification-services/codification/.
56

This example illustrates some of the public policy complexity that one must navigate
during permit compliance reviews. A version of larger scale is attached as appendix C.

Figure 4.1: Thesis study area, public policy planning areas, historic districts, and HCMs map. This map illustrates
the complex layers of City planning, within the thesis boundaries, in one visual snapshot. Some of the data were
not absolutely inclusive of all historic resources, for example author inserted a file that was missing, the
*Equitable Building LA HCM No. 1088 located at the north east corner of Hollywood and Vine next to the
Pantages Theater. Also, the historic district has sixty-three contributors that are also not reflected as symbols in
this map within the historic district boundaries. In a discussion with Janet Hansen in April 2016, the City has a
plan to hire additional coding staff to help resolve issues such as these. GIS Data, “Permission for use of these
proprietary data is granted by the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Copyright © 2015 City of
Los Angeles. All Rights Reserved,” (LADCP). Map created by author using QGIS program, 2016. GNU General
Public License, Version 2, June 1991, Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place
- Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA; and OpenStreetmap.

Re:code LA
The last comprehensive zoning code for Los Angeles was written in 1946. In 2013, the
Los Angeles Department of City Planning began a rewrite of the seven hundred plus page zoning
code. This rewrite is a reorganization of the municipal zoning code, a section that is within the
overall Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC.) Over the last seventy years, there have been
many layers of amendments, conditions, and overlays codified into the zoning code. The
comprehensive revision of the now complex Los Angeles zoning code is a planning project
coined as “re:code LA.”
88

88
City of Los Angeles Planning, Recode LA Information, accessed May 11, 2016, http://recode.la/about.
57

The re:code LA City planning team is in the process converting the existing zoning code
to an open source web-based zoning code system that is intended to make it easier for users to
browse, search, and download the new zoning regulations. It is a customized interactive program
using an address, parcel or use specified by the user.
89
The idea is that there will be a Web Code
Toolkit to enable any member of the public to make reports or static documents searchable and
interactive on the web. This thesis was informed by existing codes that were codified in the
existing Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) and should eventually be included in the new
zoning code under re:code LA. The topic of how existing code translates into the new re:code
LA warrants future study and goes beyond the scope of this paper. In theory, the analysis
provided in this thesis would remain unchanged as re:code LA will rely on existing public policy
as the basis to rewrite and incorporate into the web-based code. The City is expected to complete
a citywide zoning code ready for adoption by the year 2017.
90

A sign’s geographic location, determines which City ordinances or plans are applicable.
Below is a brief summary of the City ordinances, starting with sign ordinances, and other plans
that might apply within the thesis boundaries located along Hollywood Boulevard and include
adjacent streets between La Brea and Gower. (Figure 0.1)

Citywide Sign Ordinance
The existing citywide sign ordinance is captured in the LAMC. The definitions in the
LAMC Sign Regulations define sign types such as a roof sign, “[a] sign erected on the top of a
building.” However, the only reference to historic is under the regulations for a “SN” Sign
District that it “cannot supersede the regulations of an Historic Preservation Overlay
District…”
91

There is a definition of Original Art Murals, Vintage Original Art Murals, and Public Art
Installations. In the past, some conservationists would classify painted wall signs under one of

89
City of Los Angeles Zoning Code re:code LA, accessed April 12, 2016, http://recode.la/updates/news/historic-
open-source-approval-recode-las-webcode-toolkit. http://recode.la/updates/news/historic-open-source-approval-
recode-las-webcode-toolkit.
90
City of Los Angeles, re:code LA, accessed April 12, 2016, http://recode.la/about.
91
LAMC, Article 13.11, Development Regulations, accessed April 12, 2016,
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lapz/municipalcodechapteriplanningandzoningco?f=templates
$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lapz_ca.; and LAMC Article 4.4 Sign Regulations, accessed April 12, 2016,
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lapz/municipalcodechapteriplanningandzoningco?f=templates
$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lapz_ca.
58

these categories. Murals and public art installations in Los Angeles have a new definition that
excludes commercial messages as of 2013. The 2013 Mural ordinance and its impacts on signs as
public art, including funding, is reviewed later in this chapter. The definition of Art under the
Sign Regulations would exclude painted wall Ghost signs that typically contain commercial
messages of businesses that no longer reside at that same location.
The City is in the process of establishing new sign regulations. City planners have been
working on revising the existing citywide sign ordinance since 2002.
92
In 2002 there was a
billboard ban of off-site signs, murals, and Supergraphics. In 2008, City Council directed the
Department of City Planning to draft an ordinance. Since then there has been over nineteen
hearings before the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee. In 2015, PLUM
forwarded two versions, versions A and B, along with other proposals to the City Planning
Commission (CPC.) CPC’s actions and recommendations resulted in version B+. Currently,
there are three versions before PLUM, version A, version B, and version B+. Details of these
differences and how it relates to the existing sign regulations can be found in the December 16,
2015 City planning commission transmittal, and letter, attached as appendix I.
93

The proposed PLUM and CPC citywide sign ordinance versions A, B, and B+ all include
slight variation in their document wording, but generally convey the following intended key
points that are germane to historic signs in Hollywood:
• Hollywood is a proposed Tier 1 regional center.
• Off-site sign reduction program.
• Replacement (reconstruction or re-created) of signs on historic buildings will retain
applicable non-conforming rights under the General Provisions, Maintenance, section
14.4.4, M.
• A non-conforming qualified historic structure, including alterations, repairs or
rehabilitation of sign, or structural support, may comply with California Historical
Building Code, in lieu of Division 62 of this Code, sections 14.4.24 and 22.
• Existing SUDs are grandfathered in, this would apply to Hollywood SUD, section 23.

92
City Ordinances 173988 and 174517 reference amending the existing citywide sign ordinance.
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/1998/98-1474_ORD_173988_05-30-2001.pdf, and
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/1998/98-1474_ORD_174517_05-24-2002.pdf, accessed June 28, 2016.
93
Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Council File No. CF 11-1705, Citywide Sign Regulations/Revision,
“Citywide Sign Ordinance” presentation, Ordinance background slide, April 19, 2016, accessed May 15, 2016,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1705_misc_a_4-19-16.pdf.
59

• Community Benefit Program relating to new sign district, required community benefits,
including among other measures, repairs to signage or improvements to aesthetics within
Sign District or impact area, in exchange for new off-site and digital signs when there is a
nexus between any negative impact caused by new signs in sign district.
• Categorical exemption to accompany revised citywide sign ordinance.
Below is a summary of the key differences compiled by author in a table and listed by each
proposed ordinance version, or other proposal, that specifically relate to the conservation of
historic signs in Hollywood. (Table 4.1)
Proposed
ordinance(s);
and/or other
proposals/actions
Proposed language key changes from existing citywide sign ordinance
relating to historic signs in Hollywood
94

PLUM version A
• Creates a process by which design standards regulating digital
signs on façades of City-designated historic buildings within
existing sign districts could be modified, section 14.4.2.F.
• Establishes amnesty for existing off-site signs without a permit or
out of compliance with a permit.
• Permits vinyl replacements for pre-1986 mural signs.
• Grandfather date for sign districts, projects and specific plans
initiated prior to December 16, 2014 not subject to new Citywide
ordinance, including Paramount Studios Specific Master Plan
including a sign plan dated and submitted as DEIR September,
2011.
95

PLUM version B • Grandfather date for sign districts, projects and specific plans
initiated prior to December 16, 2014 not subject to new citywide

94
City of Los Angeles Letter to PLUM committee from the Director of Planning dated December 18, 2015.
95
Paramount Studios Master Plan includes a Sign Plan and was submitted as part of an Environmental Impact
Report filed in September of 2011. This is used as an example of how a studio campus within Hollywood falls
outside of the existing HSUD but is affected by the citywide sign ordinance proposed changes in establishing a new
sign district. Paramount has completed their Final Environmental Impact Report, yet this change in the
grandfathering date will create some question as to how it will be treated as noted by Sharon Kaiser of Paramount
Studios during a public comment period at the CPC hearing. Either way, Paramount is preparing a sign district plan
to present to City Planning, May 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1705_misc_1-12-15.pdf.
60

ordinance, including Paramount Specific Master Plan including a
sign plan dated and submitted DEIR September, 2011.
CPC specific
actions on October
22, 2106 for
versions A/B/B+
• Disapproved PLUM version A and B.
96

• Approved a revised citywide sign ordinance called version B+ for
PLUM that included among other stays or changes; 1) Revised
illumination standards, lower than proposed, to be similar to
Historic Broadway Sign District that are more restrictive. 2)
version B+ grandfathering for sign districts not approved by date
changed to March 26, 2009. However, continued version B date
for specific sign plans initiated or applied for prior to December
16, 2014 which apparently would include the Paramount Specific
Master Plan including sign plan dated and submitted September,
2011. Since they are not certain if their plan would be considered
a Tier 1 or 2 they may need to resubmit a new sign district plan.
97

• Specific actions to disapprove: 1) Digital displays on historic
building façades or rooftops relating to version A and additional
provisions, and 2) Amnesty for existing off-site signs without a
permit or out of compliance with a permit.
98

• Approved categorical exemption No. ENV-2009-CE.
• Re-delegated authority to the Director of Planning to act on behalf
of the City planning commission on citywide sign ordinance case.
CD13 Letter to
City Council to
reconsider digital
on historic
buildings.
• Allow digital display signs on City designated HCM façades and
rooftops in existing SUD. Suggested language, “Digital Display
Signs on historic façades and rooftops. The Director may grant a
Sign Adjustment to the following design standards for a digital
display sign: height above grade; allowance for placement on an

96
City of Los Angeles City Planning Commission Corrected Letter of Determination, Correct to File, January 12,
2016, accessed May 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1705_misc_1-12-15.pdf.
97
Sharon Kaiser, Paramount Studios Public Comment October 22, 2015 CPC meeting on citywide sign ordinance.
Hearing attended by author, and track #7 link online 33:52 minutes into meeting, accessed April 29, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/InternetCalendar/pdf.aspx?Id=51294.
98
Ibid.
61

open panel roof sign; number of signs or displays on a block face
or building; location; and square footage of the sign face, subject
to the following limitations…the sign must conform to the
Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.”
99

Table 4.1: List of proposed ordinances for citywide sign use. Summary compiled by author using source information
noted and referenced within each table cell and appendices I-K.

The proposal to allow digital display signs on façades and rooftops is driven by the
potential financial upside to the individual historic building owners, with the assumption that it
will help them be self-sustaining and help them maintain the historic building. On the face of it,
it might sound like a financial incentive for the conservation of historic buildings. However,
there is a flaw in the argument. There are circumstances where this would not be the case. For
example, a developer rehabilitated the Broadway Hollywood Historic Building and converted it
from a commercial building to a mixed use with retail as the pedestrian level, with ninety-six
live/work units on the above levels. The developer after selling the individual units, retained a
significant portion of the Broadway Hollywood Historic Building’s new sign area rights. During
the rehabilitation, OHR negotiated with the developer for an open panel sign with a new sign
structure on the West facing façade. This was an allowable and accepted solution at that time.
Since then, only the sign structure has been installed. Should a future change in the HSUD allow
this sign to be a digital display instead of an open panel sign, this would only benefit the
developer, who does not own the building. None of the revenue would benefit the Broadway
Hollywood Historic Building, nor would it help it ever be self-sustaining. However, it would
have visual and illumination impacts to the current owner residents.
The other consideration would be the cumulative impact. There are a total of fourteen
eligible buildings along the Hollywood Boulevard corridor from La Brea to the Hollywood
Freeway 101 located within the existing HSUD boundaries. Six of these buildings are
concentrated at or near the intersection of Hollywood and Vine street, the Broadway Hollywood
Building, the Taft Building, the Equitable Building, the Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Records
building, and the Pantages Theater. Thus, about 40 percent of the eligible Historic-Cultural
Monument Buildings within the HSUD are eligible for the PLUM version A and CD 13

99
See CD13 letter dated April 19, 2016, attached as appendix J.
62

proposed digital displays on the façades or rooftops. This represents a disproportionate
concentration or accumulation of added potential illumination at this intersection. Three of these
buildings are mixed use with retail at the pedestrian level and residential in the upper floors.
100

The suggested ordinance language incorporates the project permit procedures to include
the Secretary of Interior Standards of rehabilitation, the ordinance itself would have a categorical
CEQA exemption. This can be interpreted that the public project disclosure would rely on
something other than the CEQA process to vet and disclose ongoing cumulative impacts.
Cumulative impacts to consider would be reviewed against the concentration of historic
buildings, the sense of place as a historic district, and illumination impacts to residents as each
sign is added.
It is clear that there needs to be some further study presented at the next PLUM hearing
that would inventory the eligible buildings and their concentrations and those impacts prior to
including this type of relief benefit, digital displays on historic buildings, as part of the new
Citywide Ordinance. There are two buildings at the corner of Hollywood and Vine that
reportedly do not own sign parcels currently attached to their buildings, the Broadway
Hollywood Building and the Equitable Building.
101
Based on the CD13 proposed language, these
signs could be converted to digital displays. It is critical that a survey of building owners and
sign parcel ownership be conducted such that additional policy language is added to tie, via a
covenant, any future digital display off-site sign revenue to the conservation of the historic
building or sign at the same location. If this does not happen, there is an unintended outcome
where the benefit will not be realized by the historic building and thus will not contribute to the
self-sustaining revenue goals that CD 13 is suggesting the proposal will create. It might even
encourage future developers to disconnect “sign parcels” from historic buildings to install digital
displays, much in the same way that solar companies install solar panels for free with lease
agreements to fund the installation and maintenance costs.
102

There is another possible financial incentive to encourage the conservation of historic
signs in the above mentioned proposals. The proposed citywide revised ordinance B, B+

100
Table of Eligible HCMs within the HSUD can be found under appendix K.
101
Building owner states that there is a separate sign parcel owned by KOR group at the Broadway Hollywood. It is
reported by the Broadway HOA that a similar arrangement may exist at the Equitable building. Interview with
Broadway Hollywood unit owner.
102
Solar lease options, SolarCity, “SolarLease” program, accessed June 17, 2016,
http://www.solarcity.com/residential/affordable-solar-lease
63

references existing signs, and the repair of HCMs, or signs on historic buildings. The incentive is
that historic buildings can utilize the California Historic Building code in lieu of the LAMC for
building and safety compliance matters. The CHB can offer more flexible solutions to meeting
building and safety standards. This can translate into saving money and time when rehabilitating
a historic sign.

Hollywood SUD
The Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District Ordinance is commonly known as the
Hollywood SUD. The first Hollywood SUD ordinance was adopted in 2004. The boundaries
were clarified and amended in 2006, and another text amendment was adopted in 2010. The
boundary map is included under appendix B and included in the author’s map, appendix C. A
copy of the 2010 ordinance is attached for reference as appendix F. The ordinance was,
“enacted to acknowledge and promote the continuing contribution of signage to the distinctive
aesthetic of Hollywood Boulevard, [the Hollywood Media District,] as well as control the blight
by poorly placed, badly designed signs throughout Hollywood.”
103
A key feature of this
ordinance is the robust conservation incentives afforded to historic buildings or HCMs. Existing
historic signs and Restored historic signs are exempt from the maximum permitted combined
sign area, thus effectively giving a 100 percent sign area bonus. There is also a provision and
procedure for historic buildings to transfer unused sign rights to a non-historic building within
the Hollywood SUD boundaries. The Hollywood SUD boundaries extend beyond the historic
district and include many non-historic buildings, such that the increase in signage would not
impact historic resources. For example, a historic building on Hollywood Boulevard between La
Brea Avenue and Argyle Avenue could transfer un-used onsite digital wall sign rights to a non-
building on Sunset Boulevard between the streets of Cahuenga Boulevard and Gower Streets.
This transfer could conceivably be a term-lease rather than a one-time transfer of a sign right.
The loophole here is that the building is not with certainty benefiting from the financial gains
garnered from the transfer. This transfer and related revenue should be tethered to the
maintenance of the historic building that is transferring the right. This is done in the Mills Act
Property contract and can be mirrored in this transfer as part of the agreement. This may be an

103
Ordinance Pages 1, 6, and 9 in appendix F.
64

educational opportunity to help historic building owners be better stewards by taking a long-term
approach during such negotiations. The Broadway Hollywood Historic Building new sign parcel
example discussed later in this chapter highlights this issue.
City Councilmember O’Farrell of District 13 sent a letter to PLUM dated September 25,
2015 asking that the proposed revised citywide sign ordinance version A include a provision
allowing digital displays on historic façades and rooftops. This request was disapproved by the
City Planning Commission (CPC) during the October 22, 2015 hearing. At the next PLUM
meeting, on April 19, 2016, CD13 requested for a second time that digital displays be allowed
for Historic- Cultural Monuments to be self-sustaining and benefit from the visibility and
revenue a digital display can provide…” PLUM voted to take it back into consideration. This
request is being made of the City planners (PLUM and CPC) to consider an amendment to the
exiting sign ordinance supplemental sign districts in an effort to provide, “means to sustain the
monument in perpetuity.”
104

This is a complex issue that warrants examination. On the face of it, it seems reasonable
to request such consideration to existing HCMs as this request would trigger a permit review
with OHR involvement. However, because there is a CEQA exemption provided if they meet the
review criteria, there is a potential that the review for cumulative impacts are not fully vetted.
For example, this request as presented would generate nine eligible HCMs allowed to have
digital on the roof and façade with four on or near the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine
Street.
105
Since the existing historic signage is considered a 100% sign bonus, this would be in
addition to the existing historic signage that exists. Also, The Broadway Hollywood Building,
eligible as HCM and within and existing SUD, has a unique issue, in that, the building owners do
not own one of the large sign structures, or rights. The developer retained those rights and thus
none of the visibility or money would benefit the building, much less in perpetuity. The request
warrants a study prior to implementation. The intent is to financially help historic buildings, but
the unintended consequences, such as a concentration or the inability for the digital display to
fiscally support conservation efforts are issues that can be vetted during a full CEQA process that
require more technical studies that would disclose these types of unintended impacts.

104
City Clerk Records, accessed April 21, 2016. A copy of this letter is attached as appendix J.
105
Author compiled a list of LA HCMs eligible for Digital Rooftop and Façade Signs. See appendix K.
65

Historic Hollywood Neon District
The Historic Hollywood Neon District was created in 1997 as part of the 1993 Wilshire
Neon District project by the Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department (CAD.) It was funded
with an allocation of funds from the Community Redevelopment Agency. The list of historic
neon signs was submitted by CAD, approved by City Council and the Mayor. The LUMENS
project through the Museum of Neon Art was created by CAD in 2001 via City Contract No. C-
101886 to help facilitate the rehabilitation of the proposed contributors to the CAD Historic
Neon Sign Districts located along the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor and in Hollywood.
Some of the neon signs identified in this study were individually nominated as HCMs.
However, there were others that were not, such as the Mark Twain Hotel rooftop neon sign. This
sign and building are currently undergoing rehabilitation, but do not appear to be under any kind
of historic sign permit compliance review by the City. A City permit was issued with the
following comments:

REPAIR, ALTERATION, AND CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY OF (E) 63-ROOM
HOTEL, TYPE V, PARTIALLY SPRINKLERED, R-1 OCCUPANCY TO 62-ROOM
HOTEL, TYPE V-A, FULLY SPRINKLERED PER 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13, NON-
TRANSIENT R-2 OCCUPANCY. (E) 5,468 SQUARE FEET OF R-1 OCCUPANCY
TO BE CONVERTED TO NON-TRANSIENT R-2 OCCUPANCY.
106

Research did not produce any record of a historic compliance review for these repairs or
alterations. There are no recent sign alteration permits listed in the online Building and Safety
database. An online blog indicated that the “restoration of the hotel will also include
refurbishment of the hotel's rooftop Hotel Mark Twain sign…”
107
The historic rooftop sign is
attached to a building located outside of the CRA boundaries, outside of the HSUD boundaries,
outside of the Hollywood Boulevard Entertainment historic district. This is a public policy
loophole. The historic neon signs identified as contributors within the Historic Hollywood Neon

106
City Building and Safety Department permit no. LA52343, August 17, 2015, accessed June 19, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/Report.aspx?Record_Id=56267556&Image=Visible&ImageToO
pen={3ac766b8-15ab-4838-8800-194bc7a35977},
107
Bianca Barragan, “Notoriously Rough Hollywood Hotel Getting Boutique Makeover: The Mark Twain Hotel's
signage will get restored, too,” Curbed Los Angeles, April 16, 2016, accessed June 19, 2016,
http://la.curbed.com/2016/4/15/11439610/notoriously-rough-hollywood-hotel-getting-boutique-makeover
66

District boundaries, and those eligible under an expansion of the boundaries, were never codified
as a Sign District in the LAMC as part of a historic district, nor were the individual property
records flagged for historic preservation review in the City Zone Information and Map Access
System (ZIMAS). (Figure 4.2)

Figure 4.2: Mark Twain Hotel ZIMAS information. The red circle around, “Historic Preservation Review: No”,
illustrates a codification loophole, accessed May 8, 2016, http://zimas.lacity.org/.

Thus, when the developers apply for a sign repair or alteration permit, this historic sign
will not benefit from a required treatment plan that will ensure that that repairs will be done to
the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. A codification of the Historic Hollywood Neon Sign
District would include this sign as a contributor, and as a result require a historic preservation
review to guide rehabilitation plans. After interviews with the former CAD leadership, several
LUMENS project team members, and city archive files, it is still unclear as to why this was
67

never done. There is more discussion on this type of codification loophole under the 2013 Mural
Ordinance at the end of this chapter.

Los Angeles City Cultural Heritage Ordinance
The Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance was enacted in 1962. It is codified in
section 22.171 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code which provides the framework for
designating Historic-Cultural Monuments defined as:

For purposes of this article, a Historic-Cultural Monument (Monument) is any site
(including significant trees or other plant life located on the site), building or structure of
particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, including historic
structures or sites in which the broad cultural, economic or social history of the nation,
State or community is reflected or exemplified; or which is identified with historic
personages or with important events in the main currents of national, State or local
history; or which embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type
specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction; or
a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius
influenced his or her age.
108

In 2015, the Office of Historic Resources proposed amendments to the Cultural Heritage
Ordinance. PLUM has approved the following recommendation report on March 2, 2016 and it is
expected that this will be adopted by City Council. A copy of the summary of changes is
attached as appendix M.

INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning (DCP), in consultation with the City
Attorney, to prepare an ordinance that incorporates the following amendments to the
Cultural Heritage Ordinance, Section 22.171 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code:
a. Provide for immediate notification of property owners when a Historic-Cultural
Monument application has been deemed completed by DCP staff, concurrent with
issuance of a temporary stay on demolition or substantial alteration.
b. Allow for an extension of up to 60 days to the time limits for Commission and Council
consideration of a proposed Monument designation, with consent of the property owner.

108
LA City Administrative Code, Office of Historic Resources Summary of Procedural Changes to Section 22.171.7
Definition of Monument, appendix M, accessed May 14, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20of%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Ordinances%20Amen
dments.pdf.
68

c. Make any technical corrections to Section 22.171.7, and re-label this section from
Definition of Monument to Designation Criteria, to enable this section's language to be
used as separate criteria for designation.
109

The LA Cultural Heritage Ordinance (LACHO) does not require owner consent. Thus it
is a non-voluntary program. This presents unique challenges for historic signs located on historic
buildings and especially for those located on non-historic buildings. For historic signs outside of
the Hollywood SUD there are fewer incentives for retaining a historic sign and it triggers an
additional historic review during repairs, adding time and cost. It may also trigger a California
Environmental compliance review process depending on the scale of the project and proposed
impacts.
There is no policy mechanism to de-designate or terminate an HCM designation,
however a designation does not prohibit demolition, it only delays it. The initial stay is
temporary during the application process and once designated the stay is long enough to provide
other preservation solutions. The maximum stay for a designated monument is one hundred and
eighty days, with another possible additional one hundred and eighty-day extension. This is
almost a year. Typically, developers want to avoid these types of delays and are eager to find
conservation solutions as seen in the Vogue Theater case study. For the most part, this ordinance
works in practice. Other cities such as Burbank and Tucson have created separate and distinct
Landmark Sign ordinances to enable a voluntary program (or one where you can terminate the
designation) that is less restrictive and provides more incentives than the City’s citywide sign
ordinance outside of sign districts. The Hollywood SUD provides more robust incentives for
qualified historic signs as defined in the ordinance.
The LACHO does not require the historic resource to be fifty years old. This provides
more flexibility for locally significant historic resources. This is important for signs that are
between twenty-five and fifty years old. The useful life for the materials can be shorter than the
primary building materials. Identifying and rehabilitating historic signs that are in this age range
increases the possible retention. The public policy loophole is in the survey itself and in the
various ordinance definitions of qualified historic building, sign or resource. SurveyLA results
have been released for Hollywood. However, there many eligible historic signs that were not

109
LA City Council File website, March 3, 2016 council action, accessed May 14, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=16-0126.
69

captured in the Hollywood Survey. More discussion on this topic can be found later in this thesis
under the Survey and Study section.

1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
The 1999 Adaptive reuse ordinance was intended as an incentive for developers and
building owners to rehabilitate existing commercial buildings to be re-imagined into live/work or
residential use. These commercial buildings also may have had historic signage, such as the
Broadway Hollywood. This building originally had two rooftop signs and a blade sign, only one
remains and it was rehabilitated and specifically identified as a historic sign under the 1997
Historic Hollywood Neon District and later as an individual LA HCM resource. The developer
sold the building units and retained the undeveloped sign rights negotiated with the City as part
of the project. The developer retains these rights to this day. This was an interesting separation of
development rights that at the time may have seemed like a way to encourage adaptive re-use.
However, now that there is a proposed change in the Hollywood SUD to allow digital signs on
open panel structures, this changes the potential outcome for the unit owners.
110

Hollywood Community Plan
The Hollywood Community Plan governs the land use within its boundaries. On June 19,
2012 the City adopted the Hollywood Community Plan Update (HCPU). On December 10, 2013,
the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a decision to set aside the HCPU and its associated
Environmental Impact Report. “The ruling will also force the City to conduct a new approval
process for the Hollywood plan, providing more accurate population data and improve its
analysis of alternatives to the plan, said Frank Angel, the lawyer with Save Hollywood, another
group that sued.”
111

110
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, Adaptive reuse, Hollywood Community Redevelopment Project Area,
Ordinance 175038, accessed June 17, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2002/02-0177_ORD_175038_02-09-
2003.pdf
111
David Zahniser, "Ruling Deals Blow to Growth Plan; A Judge Says the Hollywood Zoning Update that Allows
Larger Development is 'Fatally Flawed.'." Los Angeles Times, December 12, 2013, ProQuest doi:1466915732,
accessed May 15, 2016,
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1466915732?accountid=14
749.
70

The City vacated the HCPU plan and reverted to the prior plan on April 2, 2014. Thus
Hollywood currently operates under the 1988 Hollywood Community Plan.
112
There are no
specific design guidelines for the streetscape or signs in the 1988 Hollywood Community Plan.

CRA/LA and the Community Redevelopment Plan
The Community Redevelopment Act was enacted in 1945 by the State of California. Its
purpose was to assist local governments in eliminating blight through development. This act
gave the local governments, cities, and counties, the authority to create local redevelopment
agencies.

In 1951, the Legislature superseded the Community Redevelopment Act with the
Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), Chapter 710, Statutes of 1951. Codified in
California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 16, and the Health and Safety Code,
beginning with Section 33000, the CRL provides funding from local property taxes to
promote the redevelopment of blighted areas.

The CRL also established the authority for tax increment financing (TIF), which is a
public financing method to subsidize redevelopment, infrastructure, and other
community-improvement projects. TIF uses future increases in property taxes to
subsidize current improvements, which are projected to create the conditions for the
increases. For example, the completion of a public project might result in an increase in
the value of surrounding real estate, which generates additional tax revenue.
Redevelopment agencies are required to pass through a portion of their tax increments to
the local taxing agencies within their project areas.

In 1976, the California Legislature required that at least 20% of the tax increment
revenue from redevelopment project areas be used to increase, improve, and preserve the
supply of housing for very low, low, and moderate income households.

In 1993, the California Legislature enacted AB 1290, known as the “Community
Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 1993,” which revised the CRL to address alleged
abuses, and added restrictions on redevelopment activities, including limiting them
predominately to urban areas.
113

112
There was an updated plan that was litigated based on outdated census data that led to the courts reverting the
Hollywood Community Plan back to 1988 in 2013. CF12-0303-S3 Adopted Action Report Dated February 18, 2014
and CF-12-0303-S4, dated April 2, 2014, accessed May 14, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=12-0303-S4.
113
The excerpt succinctly captures the history of the CRA Redevelopment Agency in California prior to dissolution,
accessed May 11, 2016,
http://redevelopmentdissolution.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/rdd?1dmy&page=dept.rdd.home.detail.hidden&urile=wcm
%3apath%3a/lacounty+content/lacounty+site/home/redevelopment+dissolution/rdd+home/home+links+of+interests
/rd_history+of+redevelopment+in+california.
71

California Governor Brown issued a proclamation on January 20, 2011 declaring a fiscal
emergency, and signed a legislative bill, ABX126 that became effective October 2, 2011. The
bill defunded and dissolved all California Redevelopment and Community Development
Agencies to recover the property tax monies allocated to the CRAs.
114

The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles was subsequently
dissolved pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Revenue and Taxation Code
amendments resulting from the legislation. Most other redevelopment agencies in California
were absorbed by their respective cities. This is not the case for Los Angeles. City Council
declined to become the successor agency but entered into an agreement with CRA/LA for it to be
the local authority and successor agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Los Angeles. The CRA successor agency, CRA/LA performs the administrative functions
specified in City ordinances and LAMC and LAAC code.
115

ABx1-26 [did] not abolish the 31 existing Redevelopment Plans. The land-use authorities
in the Redevelopment Plans remain in effect and continue to be administered by the
CRA/LA until transferred to the Department of City Planning.
116

Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area and Plan
There are no longer any tax funding mechanisms for CRA/LA successor Agency. The
agency is selling off assets and operating with a limited staff. The Hollywood Redevelopment
Plan, LA City Ordinance 175236, adopted May 7, 1986, amended on May 20, 2003 is currently
administered by CRA/LA. The Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area has specific boundaries
and these are outlined in appendix C. The plan was established under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) set forth project area
boundaries, goals, and outlined proposed redevelopment activities including land use and a

114
CA Legislative Chapter, accessed May 11, 2016, http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-
0050/abx1_26_bill_20110629_chaptered.html.
115
CF 12-0049, Interdepartmental Correspondence, January 10, 2012 from Chief Legislative Analyst to City
Administrative Officer, accessed May 14, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-0049_rpt_cla_1-10-
12.pdf.
116
Notice that appears on the CRA/LA website to clearly advise public that the Redevelopment Plans remain in
force. There is a common misconception that they are no longer valid, 33:52 minutes into meeting, accessed, May 5,
2016, http://www.crala.org/internet-site/.
72

section on signs and billboards that states the intent of the Agency may be to, “adopt additional
sign and billboard standards which may be more restrictive than City standards in order to
further the goals of his plan.”
117

The Cultural and Artistic Development section outlines that at least 1 percent of private
development costs, excluding land and off-site improvements which the Agency has facilitated is
subject to participation to finance the provision of cultural and artistic facilities, features, and
programs in the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.
The reduction in CRA/LA staff is particularly troubling with demolition permit
compliance reviews in Hollywood for older buildings. Hollywood Heritage, Inc. (HH), a local
preservation advocacy group, sued the City for not enforcing the Hollywood Redevelopment
Project Plan Design Review Requirements.

Hollywood Heritage took legal action regarding the lack of a design review component of
the CRA plan for Hollywood as promised in the original Redevelopment Plan. As a result
of that legal action, Hollywood Heritage had been working with the CRA representatives
in an advisory capacity in regards to the application and granting of demolition permits
and to resolve the status of plans and surveys.
118

HH entered into a settlement agreement in 2009 and in compliance with the Settlement
Agreement between Hollywood Heritage and the (former) Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Los Angles (CRA/LA), now the CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority
(CRA/LA-DLA), demolition clearance requests for buildings over a certain age go to the
CRA/LA-DLA are forwarded to HH. CRA/LA-DLA will not provide clearance for a demolition
permit until Hollywood Heritage has had an opportunity to respond.
Prior to dissolving, the CRA of LA drafted urban design plans in 2010 that addressed the
Hollywood streetscape and design issues, but were never adopted as they were not completed
before the successor agency CRA/LA took over. Below is an excerpt from the un-adopted plans,
part of appendix L that explain the intent:

117
Redevelopment Plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project, Ordinance No. 175236, Plan date July 12, 2003,
Section 516, Signs and Billboards, p. 37, accessed May 14, 2016, http://www.crala.org/internet-
site/Projects/Hollywood/upload/HollywoodRedevelopmentPlan.pdf.
118
Hollywood Heritage Website, Policies and Procedures, accessed May 11, 2016,
http://www.hollywoodheritage.org/#!policies-and-procedures/c6ll.
73

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Sections 505.2, Franklin Avenue Design District, and
506.2, Hollywood Boulevard District, both require the development of design plans to
address compatibility of new development in the context of historic settings and views to
and from the Hollywood Hills.
119

Hollywood’s natural setting, cultural landmarks, and historic districts are its greatest
physical design assets and shall be conserved.
120

New signage in the Hollywood Boulevard and Franklin Avenue Design Districts should
be based upon observation of existing historic signage types and be integral to the
proportion, scale, and architectural detail of the building and architecture on which it is
placed.
121

The de-funding/dissolving of the CRA, coupled with the litigation setbacks related to the
Hollywood Community Plan Update, relegated these urban design plans to be used only as
unofficial/uncodified recommendations. Six years later, there is a lack of unified vision as to how
new digital signs will be integrated into this Historic setting. As an example, CD13 is proposing
one vision with at least eight new digital displays on historic building façades and rooftops, the
existing HSUD reflects more of the CRA urban Design Plan vision with prescribed digital
conversions allowed on marquees message displays. The 1988 Hollywood Community plan did
not address this issue at all. The Hollywood Entertainment Business Improvement District plans
have contemplated sign studies relating mostly to traffic and safety issues.

Business Improvement District Plans
The Hollywood Entertainment Business Improvement District (HED) is one of four
Business Improvement Districts in the Hollywood Community Plan area. Each has specific
boundaries. This HED is located within the thesis boundaries, is comprised of stakeholders
within its boundaries, and performs City services such as street and sidewalk cleaning, safety,

119
CRA/LA Hollywood Boulevard and Franklin Avenue Design District, Urban Design Standards and Guidelines,
Draft March 30, 2010, received a pdf copy of draft plan in a text message from Kevin Keller, Director of Planning
and Housing Policy, Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti, March 25, 2014. See appendix L for complete PDF copy.
120
Ibid, page 10.
121
Ibid, page 42.
74

and other such community services. They have performed sign surveys to understand the sign
use and traffic safety within their boundaries.
122

The HED was formed in 1996 by a small group of visionary property owners as one of
the first BIDs in the state. It has been renewed three times since then, and has been
authorized by a Los Angeles City ordinance to operate through Dec. 31, 2018. This
District has served as a fundamental underpinning to the overall Hollywood revitalization
success story. The BID is funded by more than 500 property owners. The annual budget
of $3.5 million is used primarily for private security and maintenance services.
123

This Business improvement district has historically had more commercial stakeholders.
The BID is also a source of information about signage allowed for local commercial business
and it has an informational flyer about permitted signage based on the Hollywood SUD
Ordinance No. 181340. The flyer is primarily an image based explanation of prohibited and
permitted Sign Types that can be found in appendix O.
In the past, the residential owner stakeholders were not the tenants, but the apartment
building owners. There were few residential building owners in the area, now there are an
increasing number of individual unit owners that are new stakeholders including the individual
unit owners at the W Hotel residences, The Lofts at Hollywood and Vine, and the Broadway
Hollywood Building. Thus, there has been was a significant increase in the number of new
residential owner stakeholders. This new collective residential voice may impact future studies
relating to the conservation of existing historic signs as it relates to new commercial signage in
an increasing mixed use area. This is an area of study that warrants further investigation as the
planning community tries to increase residential density around public transportation, and
walkable neighborhoods while promoting mixed use; how will this shape future commercial
signage? Will there be a return to more pedestrian scale signage, and/or an increased awareness
of historic signage at the pedestrian level?

122
Interview with Sara Besley, Hollywood Entertainment District (HED), a business improvement district,
Hollywood Property Owners Alliance representative, July 28, 2014. Discussed Hollywood Entertainment District
Sign Recommendations Survey prepared by Sussman Prejza & Company, Inc., September 2000. An extensive report
on sign use within the HED area with traffic studies and sign use recommendations included billboard removal,
theater marquee electronic conversions, and a section on Historic Building sign use. It is unclear if these were used
as part of the sign task force efforts by the City leading up to the adoption of the 2004 Hollywood Signage
Supplemental Use District.
123
Hollywood BID Website, About, accessed May 2, 2016, http://onlyinhollywood.org/hollywood-bid/.
75

2013 Mural Ordinance
There is a Public Art program in Los Angeles managed under the Cultural Affairs
Department (CAD), also known as the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA.) There is a
“Mayor-appointed Cultural Affairs Commission [that] is an advisory board responsible for the
review and approval of all architecture and artwork on, or over, City property. The Commission
assists the City in achieving great civic design and public art.”
124

A citywide debate started in 1998 relating to a “Supergraphics” policy among
stakeholders, advertisers, artists, and the City that addressed the regulations and definitions
including a clarification as to a mural sign’s dual role as public and commercial art. The issue
circled around illegal, non-conforming supergraphic signs erected by advertisers throughout the
City of Los Angeles, including Hollywood.
125

The City needed to, “develop a legally-defensible method to allow new murals in Los
Angeles to preserve and enhance [its] cultural heritage and encourage the creation of new
murals… and define murals as something other than signs…”
126
For this, the City looked at the
Portland, Oregon Fine Art Murals program that allowed easements on private property then
donated to the City. It was determined that since the City cannot “regulate signage on the basis of
content, due to First Amendment to the Constitution considerations…the concept of regulation of
time, place, and manner that was content-neutral explored…”
127

After considerable review of the issue by the joint committee of Arts, Parks, and
Neighborhood Committee and Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM), along with public
comment, there was a conclusion that this type of concept, “would allow signs such as
‘Supergraphics’ and murals containing commercial messages and lead to the proliferation of
further advertising blight.”
128

124
Website, accessed April 26, 2016, http://culturela.org/about/
125
City of Los Angeles Supergraphics Policy, CF 981474, appendix R.
126
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, City of Los Angeles CD 11 Council Motion to instruct City Planning,
Department of Cultural Affairs, Department of Building and Safety in consult with the City Attorney to define
murals as something other than signs and establish a citywide ordinance and program for permitting murals in the
City, June 1, 2011. CF 08-1233, accessed June 17, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=cfi.
127
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, City of Los Angeles Arts, Parks, and Neighborhoods Committee and
PLUM Report and Recommendations relative to murals on private property for Council Action Adopted Motion,
October 19, 2011, page 4, CF 08-1233-S1, accessed June 17, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=cfi.
128
Ibid.
76

The Cultural Affairs Department prepared a detailed report for PLUM and the Arts,
Parks, Health and Aging Committees. CAD conducted a survey of murals in the City.

[It] analyzed the murals along the following three distinct time periods: pre-1986, 1987-
2001, and 2002-2010. The reason for doing this was because the City's mural permitting
requirements was different during each time period, Therefore, the permit factors
governing murals was unique to those time periods and would determine if a mural was
legal or not.

For example, murals created prior to 1986 predate the City's current sign code. Prior to
that date, the sign code did not mention murals, and, as a result, murals on private
property did not require a mural permit. Moreover, between 1987 and 2001, the sign code
was amended to include a section for "Mural Signs" and the City required murals that
either abutted City property or were viewable from the public right-of-way obtain a
permit from the Cultural Affairs Commission. This time period predates the City's ban on
billboards and "mural sign" prohibition. Therefore, 279 of the 369 murals created during
this time period are most likely legal.

Finally, the City's billboard ban and "mural signs" prohibition went into effect in 2002
and consequently, the murals produced from 2002 to 2010 are apparently not legal
although 54 murals in our sample from this time period were reviewed and approved by
the Cultural Affairs Commission and may in fact be legal.
129

The solution after public hearings and legislative review was the creation of a mural
regulation system, and a change in the definition of Mural Sign to exclude commercial messages.
A motion was passed by City Council in October 12, 2013 and a final mural ordinance was later
adopted to allow for the creation of new Original Art Murals and the preservation of Vintage
Original Art Murals on private property. The ordinance deleted the definition of “Mural Sign”
from the Los Angeles Administrative Code (LAAC) and replaced it with two new definitions of
Original Art Mural and Public Art Installation. This LA City Mural Ordinance No. 182706
defines Original Art Mural and Public Art as not containing any commercial messages.
130

This distinction is also referenced in the proposed citywide sign ordinance such that if it
qualifies as public art is does not qualify as a sign. In the past, in addition to mural signs, there
was some overlap in the description of historic signs and Public Art Installation, both in

129
City of Los Angeles Clerk Connect, report document, accessed June 15, 2016,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-1233_rpt_cad_10-7-11.pdf.
130
City of Los Angeles Clerk Connect, Ordinance No. 182706, accessed June 15, 2016,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0923_ord_182706.pdf.
77

identification and program funding. For example, the Historic Hollywood Neon District was
developed, presented by the CAD, approved by the mayor in 1997.
However, the transition from the 1997 Historic Hollywood Neon District signs defined as
public art to historic signs under the 2004 Hollywood SUD appears to have created a public
policy loophole. In theory, historic signs as public art should also require historic preservation
review, which would have triggered historic review for historic mural and neon signs, but it
didn’t.
Murals characterized as “significant,” or “very significant” in type by CAD also fall into
this gap. The 2013 Mural Ordinance was adopted and requires that new murals register with
CAD. Thus, a new mural registry was established. Murals listed in the existing database created
during its survey were grandfathered into avoid non-conforming issues. The application and
registry process has been in effect since 2013, and CAD will produce a copy of this list upon
request, but has yet to publish a copy of the registry online.
131

The Mural Conservancy of Los Angeles (MCLA) maintains a free database of murals in
Los Angeles, but it is not the CAD official register. This creates some confusion for the public
when the mural is listed as “significant” by the CAD in a data file named “historic rank,” but is
characterized as “historic” in type by the MCLA online database. This difference in the type
characterization, “historic” versus “significant,” creates more confusion than it does clarity when
trying to determine which murals warrant a historic preservation review in any type of City
regulatory or permit compliance review.

131
Yami Durate, Arts Associate, City of Los Angeles Murals Program, Cultural Affairs Department (known as CAD
or DCA depending on the document source), in discussion with author, June 15, 2016, and an email to author, dated
June 21, 2016. CAD has a list of murals rated as either 1) not significant, 2) significant, or 3) very significant by a
panel process. The criteria used by the evaluators on the panel to come up with a final score included a six-point list
including: 1) aesthetic quality; 2) importance of artist; 3) relationship to neighborhood or city; 4) person or event
honored in the artwork; 5) importance of message to neighborhood or city; and 6) “the relationship and history of
the mural to its physical and/or cultural surroundings.” Author received a list of all murals in a file named, “historic
rank_DCA.xls,” but it only lists the murals with a score and final ranking. Those that fall between 2 and 3 can be
determined to be significant or very significant. For example, the Hollywood Jazz: 1945-1972 mural on the Capitol
Records Building located at 1750 North Vine Street by Richard Wyatt received a score of 2.85 (considered
significant by the rating system) and was included in the historic rank DCA file conveyed to the author. Additional
research goes beyond the scope of this thesis, and is suggested to provide an understanding of how these criteria
relate to each other. Additional research could develop a cross-reference analysis of the criteria that the DCA panel
is using to that of the HCM, or National Register criteria as it relates to historic signs. For example, a case study to
determine historic status applying the different criteria using a specific historic resource such as the painted wall
sign, ghost sign, listed in appendix E, Macintosh Studio Clothing, located at 6522 Hollywood Boulevard, rear
façade, circa 1930s.
78

As an example, the “Hollywood Jazz” mural by Richard Wyatt located on the Capitol
Records building wall located at 1750 Vine Street, Los Angeles, CA 90028 is listed on the
MCLA website as a 1987 “historic” mural. The CAD gave it a ranking score of 2.85 that is
equivalent to a “significant” type by the CAD.
132
In contrast, the MCLA identifies twelve types
of murals categories, including “historic” to describe the mural resource. Other category types
include graffiti/street art, landscape, community, cultural, indoor, portrait, environmental,
contemporary, abstract, political, and religious.
The new 2013 Mural Ordinance categorizes murals as Vintage Original Art Murals, an
Original Art Mural that existed and was “grandfathered” prior to October, 12, 2013.
133
A mural
registration requires documentation of age, or date of completion of the mural, including other
documentation acknowledged by the CAD.
134

In another example, a mural categorized as a “portrait” by the MCLA received a score
that was equivalent to a “not significant” type by CAD is painted onto a historic building that is
identified as a historic district contributor. The portrait is the 1983 Vintage Mural of a
Hollywood Movie Theater interior titled, “You are the Star,” by Thomas Suriya. It is painted on
the west façade of the historic resource known as the Attie Building located on the corner of
Hollywood Boulevard and Wilcox at 6436 Hollywood Boulevard. While it is not listed as a
“historic” mural on the MCLA website, it was restored by the MCLA in 1995.
135

Neither of these murals require historic preservation review according to ZIMAS.
ZIMAS does not mention the mural specifically as a historic resource or character-defining
feature of a historic resource, and this painting would fall outside of the historic districts period
of significance. The “You are the Star” mural is listed in the CAD mural database, but did not

132
Ibid.
133
Los Angeles City Clerk, online file accessed June 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0923-
s3_mot_05-09-14.pdf.
134
Los Angeles Mural Conservancy website, Department of Cultural Affairs document link, “Original Art, Mural
Art, Administrative Rules,” accessed June 15, 2016,
http://www.muralconservancy.org/sites/default/files/information/files/Original%20Art%20Mural%20Ordinance%20
Administrative%20Rules%2C%20Application%20for%20Original%20Art%20Mural%20and%20the%20
Application%20for%20Vintage%20Original%20Art%20Mural._0.pdf. The database information provided by the
conservancy appears to be utilizing category types described in the Department of Cultural Affairs files, further
research is needed to determine the link between the MCLA and DCA records and goes beyond the scope of this
thesis. It is important to note that the descriptions exist and establish what criteria were used to characterize a mural
as historic.
135
Los Angeles Mural Conservancy website, accessed April 26, 2016,
http://www.muralconservancy.org/murals/you-are-star.
79

rise to the level of significant. Thus, it is unclear if this mural would be considered eligible or
trigger any kind of historic preservation review under a City discretionary compliance review.
In part, like signs, the completed murals typically fall outside of the historic buildings’, or
historic districts’, period of significance. These murals gained significance apart from the
construction of the buildings, and are contributors to a broader cultural context of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles has a significant body of work by various artists and the community has coined the
City as, “one of the mural capitals of the world.”
136

Currently, it appears that only the buildings as historic resources, and the Hollywood
Walk of Fame sidewalk areas would require a historic preservation review during a City
compliance review. Therefore, it appears that Public Art does not trigger historic preservation
review in the ZIMAS database. While this may be the result of a simple technology or data glitch
in ZIMAS, it might also be a more significant error or gap, that is not triggering a historic
preservation review process for historic cultural resources in Los Angeles. This warrants further
study as it is a significant public policy loophole relating to the overall conservation of historic
cultural resources.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Register of Historic Places
This National Preservation act created a federal program through the National Park
Service where eligible national, state, and local cultural resources can be designated. In 1980, an
amendment to this act provided the creation of the Certified Local Governments to enable access
to federal preservation funding. However, this amendment also gave individual owners a veto
over the actual listing of their properties in the National Register. The City of Los Angeles is a
Certified Local Government.
137

The HBCE historic district was listed in 1987 on the National Register of Historic Places.
A building, or other historic resource can be listed on more than one historic register and the
levels of preservation protections can be viewed as counter-intuitive at times. This ability for
historic building or historic resource owners to veto their actual listing under the National
Register is often a surprise to the lay person.

136
Los Angeles Mural Conservancy, website, “About us” webpage, accessed April 26, 2016,
http://www.muralconservancy.org/about.
137
Richard E. Stipe, A Richer Heritage, Historic Preservation in the twenty-first century, (Chapel Hill and London:
University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 10-15.
80

Most conservationists would advocate for a historic resource to be associated with most
restrictive listing as a best practice from a preservation standpoint. Thus, a logical best practice is
for the historic district contributors to apply for a local designation, such as an HCM designation,
if eligible, given that the best demolition stay protections are enforced through municipal codes
that govern City planning and land use.
A listing in the National Register does however make a historic resource owner eligible
for federal tax saving incentives. If the historic sign is not attached to a historic building the
federal tax incentives may not be as meaningful. More discussion about the tax incentive will be
discussed under the financial incentives section. Also, more discussion will address Hollywood
survey and omission of significant signs as character defining features is noted under the Survey
Section of this thesis.

Spot Zoning, Bundle of Rights and Parcel Development Conditions
The City has practiced what some planners call “spot zoning” in the past which had led to
a bundle of entitlements and conditions during the development or rehabilitation of a building
including sign rights, sign parcels, and air rights. Roger Sherman argues that this type of rights
development is more self-determined rather than planned.

The bundle of rights process represents a means of legally but also spatially working out
the inherently contentious situation vis-à-vis property that the law not only provides for
but appears to sponsor. Unconstrained by zoning regulations, nuisances are real-life
dramatizations of this… to generate profits, rents, and use.
138

This is type of self-determined planning rings true for the Broadway Hollywood Building
located at the corner of Hollywood and Vine. A developer converted the Broadway Hollywood
building, a historic commercial building with one historic rooftop sign, in 2006 using the 1999
Los Angeles adaptive re-use ordinance and retained a sign parcel and its corresponding air rights
to a new sign negotiated under a specific plan exception with the City. Later the developer
entered into a “Sign Installation and Maintenance” agreement with the new Broadway
Hollywood Homeowners Association. The City did not require that the new building owner

138
Roger Sherman, LA Under the Influence, The Hidden Logic of Urban Property (Minneapolis and London:
University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 56.
81

retain any ownership of the new sign parcel or air rights or related revenue generated by the
proposed off-site sign use. The developer submitted the application with the HOA support based
on the terms and conditions in the agreement that mostly focused on limiting the Category and
Content Restrictions on a private parcel. The agreement states that the terms of the agreement
shall run with the Sign Parcel and be binding on or benefit each party who now or in the future
owns or acquires the right, title, estate or interest in or to the Sign Parcel, as more particularly
provided in this agreement.
139

The result was an additional new sign parcel located on a wall with off-site advertising
rights in perpetuity with a recorded covenant that is attached to the land. This type of off-site
wall signage was given by the City as an exception under the Hollywood SUD. It went through
historic review process to make sure the outcome was in keeping with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. The new sign was deemed to be a “non-traditional supergraphic” with content
limited by private agreement with aesthetics to be similar to the historic neon rooftop sign that
exists on the building.
140

Below is a summary of the determination from the City Planning Department website by
the Central Area Planning Commission. Note that the application on the website states the
applicant is 1645 Vine Real Estate, LLC, yet the 2008 final determination letter states that the
applicant is The KOR Group, Inc. The owners of the loft units operate under the name of
Broadway Hollywood Homeowners Association. While it is not uncommon for a developer such
as KOR to establish an LLC for a specific project, the 1645 Vine Real Estate, LLC should not be
confused with the subsequent building owners HOA. The sign project permit with conditions
was approved in 2008 by the developer, the sign plans were later approved in 2012 under the
Developer’s LLC that retain these specific Sign Parcel rights and ownership. The sign structure
was installed in 2013 by 1645 Vine Real Estate, LLC. The sign text and content have not yet
been installed as of May 1, 2016. Attached is a copy of the determination, approval conditions
and renderings under appendix N.
141

139
Interview with Broadway Hollywood Unit Owner Majestic Heights LLC representative relating to the Installation
and Maintenance Agreement, owners copy discussed, May 21, 2009, on April 28, 2016.
140
LA City Permit Application, Central Area Planning Commission Determination Findings, September 10, 2008
APCC 2006-8742-SPE-DI-SPP, accessed May 1, 2016, http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MTU0NjYz0,
141
Ibid.
82

Figure 4.3: Broadway Hollywood, new sign parcel on rehabilitated historic building approved by City planning,
case summary no. APCC-2006-8742-SPE-DI-SPP, accessed May 1, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MTU0NjYz0.
.

This is a concern for historic building owners. The review process dictated an
aesthetically sensitive sign outcome on the building, what it did not take into consideration was
that new sign parcel rights may not be conveyed to the new or next building owner(s). This
separation creates a revenue source that will potentially never serve the long term maintenance
needs of the historic building. A transfer of rights should consider a lease program or retention of
partial rights for any current building owner or that a required amount be dedicated to a
maintenance trust tied to building repairs. In addition, should the proposed citywide ordinance
include CD13 proposal to allow digital display under the Hollywood SUD, 1645 Vine Real
Estate, LLC could re-apply for an updated sign display. They most likely would need to re-
negotiate the installment agreement with the HOA, but there is no guarantee that the HOA that
83

maintains the historic building will be able to retain any rights, profits or other such attachments
to the sign parcel.

Neighborhood Council Ordinance
The Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council, part of the Citywide Neighborhood
Council body established in 1999, is one place where stakeholders and other interested parties
can converge for a local public hearing to vet development project concerns including sign
proposals.
142

Recently, there was an amendment relating to Neighborhood Councils. The
Neighborhood Councils have been given special standing during City Board and Commission
Meetings such that it prompts formal position consideration by a written resolution or impact
statement separate from general public comment.
143
This is a positive change for local
representatives. In Hollywood, it should yield more historic resource conservation as a reflection
of the stakeholders desired sense of community as it becomes impacted by development projects
with new signage plans, and the proposed changes to Hollywood Sign Ordinances.

Historic Broadway Sign Supplemental Use District, Streetscape Plan and Streetscape Fund
This Historic Broadway Sign Supplemental Use District program (Historic Broadway
SUD) was recently adopted in early 2016 by LA City council. It is included in this review
because it appears that City planners accept this program as the most recently drafted model for a
Signage Supplemental Use District in Los Angeles with a specific purpose, among other items,
to enhance historic sign preservation and reduce blight. This thesis examines this program that
exists outside of the Hollywood area boundaries for the specific purpose to extract best
conservation practices previously and recently vetted within the City of Los Angeles.

142
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, LA City Ordinance No. 172728, adopted July 26, 1999, accessed June
16, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/1996/96-1157-S3_ORD_172728_08-30-1999.pdf.
143
City of Los Angeles City Clerk Connect, LA City Ordinance No. 184243, April 21, 2016, accessed June 16,
2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2015/15-0524_ORD_184243_6-4-16.pdf.
84

While it is not the first program to title a sign preservation program as some variation on
“historic sign district,” it is the first to be codified as such in the LAMC.
144

This program has three parts. The Signage Supplemental Use District Ordinance, the
Streetscape Plan and the Streetscape Trust Fund.
The Historic Broadway SUD is like any other SUD within the City of Los Angeles in that
it must be approved using the process outlined in the LAMC under Article 3, Section 13.11,
Specific Plan-Zoning Supplemental Use Districts. The unique aspect of this particular SUD is
that it has been given a name that includes the word “historic.” The other LA SUDs have
definitions and purpose statements that includes historic preservation, but this is the first to
emphasize the purpose in a SUD name. It appears that this is achievable based on the Historic
Broadway SUD boundaries that are within the National Register of Historic Places Broadway
Theatre and Commercial District in Downtown Los Angeles. The Hollywood SUD includes the
Hollywood historic district but continues non-historic buildings outside of the historic district.
Thus, it does not emphasize the word “historic” in the SUD name.
The choice to create a SUD and uniquely include the term “historic” within a National
Register historic district is a best practice for all historic districts as it immediately brings
awareness to the importance of preserving historic signs. This SUD includes the language that
other historic sign programs address, such as allowing non-conforming signs to continue, albeit,
if permitted at the time of installation. While it does allow off-site advertising as an economic
incentive for all buildings, historic or not, it also limits the permissible off-site sign type to
illuminated projection signs, marquee digital signs, open panel roof signs, and painted secondary
façade signs. Billboards and electrical/digital displays that do not qualify as marquee signs are
disallowed.
Historic Broadway SUD Ordinance section 7.2, A, Intent, clearly articulates that the
intent of the ordinance is to allow off-site advertising to, “incentivize property owners to invest
in their own properties, which will not only insure to the property owner’s benefit, but will assist

144
The Wilshire Neon Corridor and Historic Hollywood Neon District were approved and adopted by the year 1997
by City Council and the Mayor but never codified in the LAMC as a sign program, nor a sign district, nor a Historic
district; it was only codified in a City contract(s) and “Covenant Agreements” administered by the Cultural Arts
Department. See appendix G for document(s) copy and table 2.2 for a list of the Historic Hollywood Neon District
contributor signs with no Historic Preservation review if not designated Historic for another designation or
environmental review process. (Table 2.2)
85

the City in accomplishing its goal of revitalizing the Broadway Theater and Entertainment
District, rehabilitating historic structures, and removing blight.”
145

Yet, nowhere in the ordinance is there instruction to mandate in perpetuity that the
building will be beneficiary of the off-site advertising revenue. The Sign Parcel owner will be the
sign building property owner that will benefit. This is not a theory. This has already been a
practice in Los Angeles when a developer purchases a building and secures separate sign
development rights that are never returned to the building owner and even worse, the off-site
revenue is not shared with the building owner to ensure the maintenance after the initial
revitalization has occurred. Earlier, the example of the Broadway Hollywood Building Sign
Parcel retained by KOR group highlights the loophole that exists with this type of financial
incentive.
There is an attempt to limit the building neglect by issuing the permit through a grant
approval of three years with renewal options subject to compliance review of both the sign and
the building to ensure that there is occupancy and the building is free of blight.
146

The Ordinance’s is attempting to discourage deferred building maintenance by providing
a financial incentive, yet this is only meaningful as a mechanism if the Building Owner and the
Sign Parcel Owners are the same. If not, it may force a Historic Building Owners to allow the
building to be unoccupied or defer maintenance, such that the Sign Parcel Owner, if different
than the Building Owner, would be denied the opportunity to renew the Off-site sign approval in
order to regain control of the Off-Site Sign Rights. This scenario might bring litigation between
the Building Owner and the Sign Parcel Owner and further delay maintenance and occupancy.
This Term Grant provision does not insure that the off-site revenue is being utilized to
maintain the building. Under these circumstances, the City has approved a financial incentive
initially for revitalization that is not ultimately sustained long term if there is a later change in
ownership, as in the Broadway Hollywood example, that splits the off-site revenue generating
abilities of the Building Owner from the Sign Parcel Owner.
To illustrate how long-term revitalization can be achieved is to look at the Mills Act
Contracts as a best practice. This contract requires the financial recipient, in the way of property

145
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, Historic Broadway Sign SUD Ordinance 184056, pages 8-9. Los
Angeles City website, accessed May 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0020_ORD_184056_3-9-
16.pdf.
146
Ibid.
86

owner tax abatement through the Mills Act contract, to account for the financial investment in
the historic building each year. It also provides an audit feature as part of the agreement terms. If
this type of language had been required by the City and incorporated into the Broadway
Hollywood Sign Agreement, the sign parcel owners would be invested in the maintenance of the
historic building that is supporting their off-site revenue generating sign. Instead, it is now the
sole responsibility of the historic building Homeowner Association owners in perpetuity.
Another option would be for the transfer of rights to be limited to a term-lease contract,
such that signs cannot be owned separate and apart from the historic building owner. The
feasibility of this goes beyond the scope of this thesis but warrants further research.
The building owners, billboard and ad agencies, preservation advocates, City
representatives all review and rely on the complex public policy including but not limited to all
of these aforementioned ordinances, acts, plans and registries to determine historic status and
determine the rehabilitation permit processes for historic signs and Murals in Hollywood.
Some city planners seek guidance, or look to other city ordinances for methods to find
solutions to similar planning issues. There are publications such as the California Planning and
Development Report (CPDR), developed by urban planner and author William Fulton, that
covers planning issues relating to California municipalities.

For 20 years, California Planning & Development Report has been regarded as the
authoritative periodical on planning and development issues - required reading for
planners, land-use lawyers, developers, environmentalists, citizen activists, and others
interested and involved in the process of planning and development in California. Since
1986, CP&DR has been a unique institution - a monthly newsletter that serves the
California planning and development community by providing comprehensive and up-to-
date information in an impartial way using the highest journalistic standards.
147

The City of Los Angeles has been in the city planning news lately due to its billboard
restrictions that were heavily litigated in recent times. Other city planners have been updated on
this topic through publications such as the CPDR. William Fulton wrote an article about the,
“Second District Court of Appeal [ruling] that the City of Los Angeles’s ban on billboards

147
California Planning & Development Report website, about, accessed May 6, 2106, https://www.cp-dr.com/about.
87

advertising offsite businesses is not content-based and therefore not subject to the ‘strict
scrutiny’ test under free speech clauses in either the U.S. or California Constitution.”
148

In addition to publications such as these, city planners may look to nearby cities for
examples of issues and solutions. For this reason, I posit that Hollywood look to the City of
Santa Monica and how they addressed a “Sign Code Enforcement Update” in 2000. Like Tucson
and Burbank, the City of Santa Monica was attempting to reduce the number of non-conforming
signs. During the public hearings in 1997, the Santa Monica City Planning commission was
preparing for a year 2000 planned sign code enforcement effort. During these discussions it was
Commissioner Kenneth Breisch that recommended, “that the Landmarks Commission needs to
become involved and think ahead about historic signs. He also stated that he is looking for
broader exemptions for some signs.”
149

Subsequent to this, the City ultimately amended their municipal sign code to resolve this
issue with more of a catchall change in the sign permit process that transfers the permit review
from an Architectural Review Board to the Landmarks Commission in certain circumstances.

In the case of any new sign proposed to be placed, changed, altered or displayed on a
designated City landmark or structure located in a designated historic district, a sign
permit must be obtained from the Landmarks Commission, instead of the Architectural
Review Board, through the approval of a certificate of appropriateness application. Such
signage applications shall be subject to the same standards specified in this Chapter. The
Landmarks Commission shall have the same powers as the Architectural Review Board
to approve, deny, modify or approve adjustments to sign applications. All signage
decisions by the Landmarks Commission may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
The Landmarks Commission Secretary shall have the same powers as the Architectural
Review Board Secretary in the administrative approval of sign permits. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
150

The sequence of events, and other code changes to conserve historic signs, that took place
between 1997 and 2015 in Santa Monica City Planning on this topic goes beyond the scope of

148
William Fulton, California Planning & Development Report, Legal Digest, Signs and Billboards, “Second
District Upholds L.A. Billboard Restrictions,” March 14, 2016, accessed March 14, 2016, https://www.cp-dr.com.
149
Kenneth Breisch, Ph.D. has served on the Board of Directors for the Vernacular Architecture Forum and the
Society of Architectural Historians, he is a published author on the topic of Architectural History and he founded the
USC School of Architecture Heritage Conservation Program later in 1999. City of Santa Monica City Planning
Meeting Minutes, November 5, 1997, accessed May 6,
2016http://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Planning-Commission/1997/19971105/m971105.html.
150
City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Planning and Zoning, 9.61.050 Landmark Commission Review, accessed
on May 6, 2014, http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonica/view.php?topic=9-6-9_61-9_61_050&frames=on.
88

this thesis. However, it warrants further review to determine if the City of Santa Monica has any
remaining public policy loopholes relating to historic signs. The point of bringing in this
example into this thesis is that Hollywood and the City of Los Angeles should consider adding
this type of catchall language to shift sign permit review to the Cultural Heritage Commission or
Office of Historic Preservation for any sign changes within a historic district.
This would be specifically relevant to the Vogue Theater marquee conversion case study
in Chapter 2 of this thesis. In lieu of a City planner finding that the building and marquee was a
non-contributor, and therefore eliminating any consideration for the unique marquee features, it
stands to reason that if the Cultural Heritage Commission had a primary review to approve the
sign alteration permit, there may have been different findings. It is posited that there would have
been more attention to the Marquee’s Neon Character Defining Features and the interpretation of
the changeable message area may have had a better chance of a conservation minded finding
than what was found initially by LA City planning.
On the other end of the spectrum, other southern California cities have a very limited
reference to the use and treatment of historic signs. For example, the City of Newport Beach
have addressed non-conforming issues in the general provisions, definitions section 20.42.040 of
the Newport Beach municipal sign code.

‘Nonconforming sign’ means a sign, outdoor advertising structure, or display that was
originally lawfully erected and maintained, but which does not conform to the current
standards of this chapter or is now prohibited. Signs that do not conform with the current
standards of this chapter or are now prohibited but were erected in compliance with an
approved variance. Modification permit, conditional use permit and/or the comprehensive
sign program do not fall within the definition of nonconforming signs.
151

The municipal code continues on under Section 20.42.180 Heritage Signs. The full text of
this section is attached as appendix T. A review of this section reveals that this city also
contemplated the non-conforming historic signs issue.

The designation of a sign as a heritage sign is intended to allow nonconforming signs that
otherwise would be required to be removed in compliance with Section 20.42.140

151
City of Newport Beach Chapter 20.42 Sign Standards text and link attached in an e-mail text from Krista
Nicholds as part of her directed research project for USC School of Architecture, Heritage Conservation Program,
May 5, 2016,
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/frameless/index.pl?path=../html/NewportBeach20/NewportBea
ch2042.html#20.42.180.
89

(Nonconforming Signs) of this chapter to remain if the sign or the establishment
associated with the sign are determined to have historical or local identity significance to
the City of Newport Beach in compliance with the standards established in this section.

While this appears to solve one issue that historic signs might encounter, the other one
conservation challenge would be in the treatment of historic signs. Nowhere in this Heritage
Signs section does it mention that designated heritage signs use the Secretary of Interior
Standard’s for rehabilitation during alterations. Thus, effectively there is no treatment plan or
guidelines for repairs or maintenance. One benefit is that the definition of a heritage sign extends
to signs created at least thirty-five years ago. The heritage sign designation in Newport Beach is
voluntary and has an easy designation removal with no requirement for a demolition stay or
consideration for relocation or salvage. This clause reflects a less meaningful designation, more
in line with an honorary designation, and inadvertently incentivizes a take-down should an owner
want to rehabilitate a sign through adaptive reuse.

A designated heritage sign may be removed if desired. If a designated heritage sign is
removed, its heritage status shall be revoked. If the character or defining features of a
designated heritage sign are altered, its designation as a heritage sign shall be revoked
and the sign shall be removed.
152

The scaled back treatment of historic commercial signs in Newport Beach is an example
of how other southern California municipalities could benefit from the conservation leadership of
Tucson and Burbank.

Surveys and Studies
While the ordinances and plans overlap geographically, the historic resource surveys
conducted in conjunction with it may not. The surveys listed in Chapter 2 under Hollywood
Historic Resource Surveys and Reviews were conducted at a particular point in time for a
particular purpose. (Table 2.1)
The Vogue Theater is an example of a historic sign resource identified in the Historic
Hollywood Neon District survey that was never codified into the LAMC. The result was a permit
review process determination that this resource was NOT historic. Thus, the digital conversion

152
Ibid.
90

did not have OHR project oversight as it would have otherwise had if the resource was
determined to be historic.
The Vogue marquee illustrates that a historic survey review loophole exists in the
Hollywood historic surveys. Surveys of the same geographic area do not always review the same
period of significance, updated contexts, or review identified but uncodified historic districts,
such as the Historic Hollywood Neon District. In addition, there are many other signs that have
not been included in any of these surveys, such as the Supply Sergeant Neon Sign, that that
Author has determined would be possibly eligible historic resource under the Historic
Hollywood Neon Sign District. The author has compiled a short list of signs in Hollywood, not
just neon, as an example of the types of signs that have not yet been either identified as eligible
historic signs in existing surveys attached appendix E.
The list in appendix E illustrates that the Vogue Marquee was not an exception, and that
there are potentially many more signs in Hollywood that have not been identified as historic
resources. A new complete survey by a Qualified Architectural Historian with a specific focus on
signage goes beyond the scope of this thesis but is recommended for future study of
Hollywood.
153

Beyond the types of surveys already mentioned or an updated context statement, there is
one more type of survey as part of a larger study that could be explored using the Learning From
Las Vegas academic architectural theory book as a guide. This book was developed using a class
studio project taught by the three authors at the Yale school of architecture in 1968. The project
examined the Sin City Phenomenon using “applied design research,”
154
to understand the Las
Vegas Strip.
155

The authors then applied the student case study, architectural history, and architectural
theories to frame their argument. The authors examined the vernacular architecture of the Las
Vegas Strip (Strip) and determined that commercial vernacular architecture could be interpreted
as symbols-in-space rather than forms-in-space. The buildings, infrastructure, and signage were
recorded and analyzed using a method of architectural study, and not the morality of the content,

153
As determined by NPS Guidelines.
154
Gary Wolf, Review of, “Learning from Las Vegas,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 32 (3)
(1973). [Society of Architectural Historians, University of California Press]: 258–60, accessed May 15, 2016, Jstor
doi:10.2307/988800.
155
Ibid.
91

such as commercial advertising or gambling interests. They found that the built environment of
the Strip was a communication system of symbols. The authors posit that the symbols of the
Strip could also be found in classical forms, specifically in relation to the Roman Forum. The
most memorable comparison was that the billboard signs were like the triumphal arches in the
Roman Forum, in that they were both spatial markers, “carrying messages,” and channeling
processional paths within a complex urban landscape.
156
It could be argued that Hollywood is
also recognized an entertainment capital of the world, like Las Vegas, and that the signs, the
Walk of Fame stars on the sidewalk, the vernacular buildings, studios, schools, and iconic
Theaters may be a type of location that would benefit from a similar study.
In addition, the Las Vegas case study posits that, “spatial characteristics of form,
position and orientation that are secondary to their symbolic function. Along the highway,
advertising Tanya via graphics and anatomy, like advertising the victories of Constantine via
inscriptions and bas-reliefs, is more important than identifying the space.” This analysis of
buildings and signs was delivered in an academic framework where the analysis of the “symbols-
in-space,” appeared to follow a type of historic resource survey formula. It was similar in nature
to the structured analysis required for evaluating a historic property for the National Park
Service. For example, the National Park Service DPR application form requires a statement of
significance to be completed. Similarly, Part I of this book is titled, “A significance for A&P
parking lots, or learning from Las Vegas.” Each of the following sub-sections under Part I could
be interpreted as an individual architectural theme. This is similar to an architectural theme
identified as part of a historic “statement of significance.” The evaluation of the Strip considered
the collective impact of the individual elements and how they related to each other. The type of
methodology is similar in approach to how historic conservationist conduct a neighborhood or
district assessment for a historic landmark application. A similar type of architectural study that
would incorporate historic resource surveys could be done as part of or in conjunction with the
Hollywood Community Plan. It would bring all of the sign survey work together and possibly
help identify new contexts, sign types, and interrelationships.

156
Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas (Cambridge and London:
MIT Press, 1972/1977), 117. The comparison of Las Vegas to the Roman Forum is more understandable when
looking at the architectural training of the author, Robert Venturi. He was a Rome Prize Fellow at the American
Academy in Rome.
92

Treatment, Repair, and Rehabilitation: Guidelines and Resources
The treatment, repair, and rehabilitation of historic signs, like historic buildings generally
rely on the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for guidance. These Standards are often
defined and referenced in the LAMC in part due to the codification of ordinances such as the Los
Angeles City Cultural Heritage Ordinance, The Hollywood SUD, the Adaptive Reuse Plan and
the Hollywood Redevelopment Project.
The National Park Service has compiled a series of Preservation Briefs that provide more
specific guidance for conservationists. Specifically, the 1991 Preservation Brief No. 25 on the
Preservation of historic signs includes broad information on historic sign types and practices;
sign regulation; preserving historic signs; new signs and historic buildings; references; and a
reading list. This brief is in need of an update. The following are a few suggestions as part of
what could be a full update, an update that goes beyond the scope of this thesis:

1) The role of a sign specific survey should be included as a new section as a best
practice. It is the basis of both the Tucson and Burbank Historic Sign programs and is
essential to eliminate the survey loopholes that can be created by overlapping surveys
as noted in the Survey section above.

2) The sub-section under preserving historic signs, on reusing historic signs. This
section addresses character-defining features, but should go on to include more
information on the impacts of material modifications as noted in the Case Study 2:
Vogue Marquee Digital Display conversion above. It is also important to keep
samples of the original materials that will be replaced for future study. The New
digital and project sign types that utilize the building as a screen should be mentioned
as a reversible or temporary new signs compatible with existing signs or buildings.

3) The topic of cumulative impacts should also be discussed and addressed.

4) The NPS briefs are reference materials that guide building and sign preservation on a
broad level. There is additional information relating to signs that can be utilized to
develop best practices at a local level. Below is a short list as an example of other
93

types of resources one can explore relating to updating Preservation Brief No. 25 and
to inform the treatment and repairs for historic sign resources in Hollywood. This
thesis bibliography provides citation information for each of the following
recommendations.

o Getty Research Examples
 The Preservation of Plastics
Plastics are found everywhere in modern and contemporary cultural
heritage, from sculpture to design objects, from architectural models to
decorative arts. Many classes of plastic have become household
names: polyethylene, polyester, polyurethane, acrylic, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), and cellulose acetate, to name just a few.…
Unfortunately, many types of plastic are already exhibiting serious
signs of deterioration that often appear with little or no warning.
Common signs of deterioration include discoloration (yellowing or
opacifying), crazing and cracking, warping, becoming sticky (as
plasticisers migrate out of the bulk material onto their surfaces), and in
extreme cases, turning completely to powder. The combination of the
potential for catastrophic changes in certain classes of plastic and the
sheer range of plastics available, means that their preservation
constitutes a significant challenge for the conservation profession.
157

 Los Angeles Historic Resource Survey Project
 Conservation of Wall Paintings (1985–1991)
 Organic Materials in Wall Paintings (2003–2010)
 Gels Cleaning Research (1998–2003)
 Historic buildings, Collections & Sites (2002–2003)
o Museum of Neon Art
 In Studio Small Repairs
 Large Repairs References
 Sign Relocation
o Twentieth-Century Building Materials, History and Conservation

157
Getty website, accessed on May 8, 2016,
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/science/plastics/index.html.

94

o Historic Preservation Technology, 2008
 Architectural Metals
 Storefronts including Signs
 Lighting and Electrical Systems
 Sustainability
 Secretary of Interior Standards
 Historic Preservation Technology Resources
o Tucson Arizona Historic Landmark Sign Treatment Plan

Financial Incentives
There is a carrot approach to conservation that promotes the preservation, repair and
rehabilitation of historic sign resources. The incentives are usually drafted in ordinances and then
codified in the LAMC to enact the financial incentives. Some incentives have already been
mentioned in chapter 3, under benefits that were available to historic signs in other city
programs.
Historic signs, defined as individual or as character defining features, of historic
buildings are eligible for the financial incentives outlined in this section. The following are
programs or rights that can translate into financial incentives available to historic signs in
Hollywood depending on the location of the resource. The first section will review key
incentives available to qualified historic signs citywide. This section will set aside any review of
the proposed citywide sign ordinance since it is unclear which version A, B, B+ or any other
variation thereof. This is an opportunity for future review that goes beyond the scope of what is
available at the time this thesis was completed. The second section will review incentives unique
to signs located within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. The third section will
review incentives under the Hollywood SUD.

Qualified Historic Signs Citywide for Signs in Hollywood Outside of the HSUD Boundaries
The Mills Act is a California State Law established in 1972 as an economic incentive
program that allows cities and counties to enter into contracts with the owners of historic
properties to provide tax relief in exchange for the continued preservation of the historic
95

property. Los Angeles adopted the Mills Act legislation in 1996 and created the Mills Act
Historical Property Contract Program.
This is a property tax abatement program executed through a ten-year rolling contract
tied to the property title that typically results in a significant reduction in the owner’s annual
property tax assessment. Historic buildings would be able to include maintenance, repair costs of
historic signs as part of this contract. The concept is that the costs to repair and maintain the sign
are returned to the owner through the tax abatement savings.
158

The drawback would be that this only applies to owner-occupied single family homes
valued at less than $1.5M, or income producing commercial properties valued up to $3M. There
are exceptions granted to the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, and the historic building
must be a locally designated HCM or listed as a contributor to an HPOZ. The Broadway
Hollywood building is a good example of this. It is an HCM, with ninety-six, single-family loft
unit owners that each participate in a Mills Act Property Tax Abatement contract. The tax
savings allocated to each owner is a type of financial offset to the Broadway Hollywood HOA
fees paid by each unit owner. These fees include among other things, maintenance and repair
expenses required to maintain the Broadway Hollywood Building and Neon Rooftop Sign.
Façade Conservation Easements including signage are charitable contributions for
historic preservation purposes. This is a legal agreement between a property owner and a historic
non-profit organization which restricts the property’s future development. There is a one-time
substantial tax deduction associated with this tax incentive. The one-time tax deduction in the
year of the grant is about 10 to 15 percent of the market value and lost development rights.
159

An example in Hollywood is the El Capitan, a City of Los Angeles HCM and contributor
to the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment National Register historic district,
that has an easement contract with the Los Angeles Conservancy. The Los Angeles Conservancy
is the primary non-profit preservation advocate in Los Angeles that has the organizational
infrastructure to carry out the periodic inspections and provide other support. One of the projects

158
City of Los Angeles, OHR website, Mills Act, accessed May 5, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/incentives/mills-act-historical-property-contract-program.
159
Ibid.
96

completed with the El Capitan owner, Walt Disney Studios, was the conversion of the theater
marquee message display from static to digital.
160

Qualified Historic Signs within Hollywood Redevelopment Boundaries
The qualified historic signs within the Hollywood Community Redevelopment Plan
boundaries include all of the above incentives plus the following that are afforded through the
Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, Ordinance No. 175236. As it specifically relates to funding any
rehabilitation of historic signs, the plan section 512, Cultural and Artistic Development
outlines an overall 1 percent private development cost to help finance the provision of cultural
and artistic facilities, features, and programs within the Project Area. This development tax is
part of the broader debate of “property rights” or “takings” controversy to the extent that the
government has power to regulate private property for the public good affects all government
regulation, not just the preservation regulation.
The concept that cultural monuments are designated for the public good in Los Angeles
on a non-voluntary basis supports the developer tax throughout the City. There is also a 1 percent
of Public Works Developer Project Costs that is earmarked for City Art Programs that include all
arts and disciplines. The Hollywood Metro line transportation projects are an example of the type
of public works projects that would have been subject to this tax. This is the premise of how the
1997 Hollywood Neon Sign District rehabilitation program under the Cultural Arts Department
funded its repair projects, affirming the concept that neon signs can be considered Public Art.
However, the 2013 Mural Sign ordinance excludes signs or public installations with
commercial messages. To access monies tied to public art installations for historic signs, there is
an opportunity for City officials to review the 2013 Mural Ordinance and make a finding such
that historic signs are an exception to this definition and would qualify as Vintage Original
Murals or Public Art Installations using an argument that they have been designated culturally
significant by the Cultural Heritage Commission and therefore should be maintained for the
public good. The distinction was made to legally thwart the proliferation of non-conforming
supergraphic signs, and not to eliminate potential Art Program funding for the rehabilitation of
historic signs. Amending the 2013 Mural Sign ordinance as part of the citywide sign ordinance

160
Los Angeles Conservancy website, accessed May 11, 2016, https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/el-capitan-
theatre-and-office-building.
97

discussion would be in keeping with the same consideration PLUM is affording during this
process to CD13’s proposal to amend the existing HSUD to provide financial considerations for
historic buildings.
The City of Los Angeles’ 1999 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance described earlier in this
chapter is also relevant in this section to underscore the financial incentives it provides to historic
buildings and its signage. Again, the Broadway Hollywood Building is a good example to
highlight the use of the conversion from commercial to live/work units and the sign plan
afforded the owner flexibility when determining the Sign Parcel plan. As noted earlier, the
disconnect was that this brought potential financial gain through a new sign parcel for the
developer, but did not require any of the future profits to benefit the maintenance of the historic
sign on the historic building. There is an opportunity to amend the 1999 Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance to close this loophole and require that any developer retained rights under this
ordinance must participate in funding some portion of the sign or building maintenance or
repairs, benefiting eligible buildings that can be historic and non-historic buildings and their
signage.
161

Qualified Historic Signs Citywide for Signs in Hollywood Inside the HSUD Boundaries
The qualified historic signs within the HSUD boundaries include all of the above
incentives plus the following that are afforded through the HSUD Ordinance:
The California Historic Building and Safety Code (CHBC) for repairs and
rehabilitation is specifically mentioned in the HSUD under the considerations for repairs,
maintenance, re-creation, and rehabilitation of historic signs. The CHBC recognizes the unique
construction problems inherent in historic buildings. It offers an alternative code that is
performance based rather than prescriptive in order to preserve the architectural elements,
encourage cost-effective conservation and provide safety. The CHBC is used primarily for
existing historic sign support structures that require safety not only for the building occupants,
but also the pedestrians and public that populate areas around and below the signage.
The Hollywood SUD Ordinance offers a mechanism for a qualified Historic Building to
transfer unused sign rights to another non-historic building located within the SUD. As such,

161
Identifying a list eligible buildings and related incentive details goes beyond the scope of the thesis. This study
could be a recommended future study as part of the Hollywood Community Plan update process.
98

100 percent of the unused maximum permitted sign area on a historic building can be transferred.
The non-historic building utilizing the transferred rights is limited to 20 percent of the total wall
area of the principal building frontage. This transfer does not specifically mention lease, but it is
possible given the broad language outlined in the ordinance. Also, the transfer of unused sign
rights may be used on a single site or multiple sites. The details and procedures are listed on
pages 17 and 18 of the Hollywood SUD, appendix B.
As mentioned in other sections of this thesis, there is an opportunity to amend City
ordinances including the Hollywood SUD to require, as part of any unused sign rights, adaptive
reuse or development transfer, some kind of profit sharing to benefit the historic building that is
transferring the rights such that the building is maintained and repaired using those funds.
The Hollywood SUD has language such that historic signs are considered a sign area
bonus. For example, 100 percent of the sign area of a restored historic sign may be applied as a
bonus to the maximum permitted combined sign area. Eligibility for sign bonus and transfer of
sign area bonus expires one year after completion of restoring a historic sign.

Qualified Contributors Inside the Hollywood National Register Historic District Boundaries
The qualified historic signs within the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and
Entertainment National Register historic district boundaries would be eligible for all of the above
incentives, plus the following incentives afforded through the Federal Historic Preservation
Tax Incentives.
Current tax incentives for preservation, established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (PL
99-514; Internal Revenue Code Section 47 [formerly Section 48(g)]) include:
» a 20% tax credit for the certified rehabilitation of certified historic structures.
» a 10% tax credit for the rehabilitation of non-historic, non-residential buildings built
before 1936.
162

162
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services, “Historic Preservation
Tax Incentives,” accessed June 16, 2016, https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/about-tax-incentives-
2012.pdf. This booklet describes general terms of the incentives and references that the Internal Revenue Code is
complex. Thus readers should consult with tax attorney and other such professionals to determine their own
situations. Similarly, each building in Hollywood would need to seek the same information from qualified
professionals prior to utilizing these tax incentives. It also defines the term, certified historic structure. “A certified
historic structure is a building that is listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places —OR— a
building that is located in a registered historic district and certified by the National Park Service as contributing to
the historic significance of that district. The ‘structure’ must be a building—not a bridge, ship, railroad car, or dam.
(A registered historic district is any district listed in the National Register of Historic Places. A State or local historic
district may also qualify as a registered historic district if the district and the enabling statute are certified by the
Secretary of the Interior.)”
99

Hollywood has many buildings that were built before 1936, and/or are contributors to a
historic district, and/or are individually listed in the National Register. The tax incentives
afforded to any of these types of buildings may include historic signage as part of the
rehabilitation project. The tax incentives under the federal tax law is more effective if the signage
is part of a larger certified rehabilitation project for the façade of a building that will be
completed within five years.
163

The minimum required project cost is only $5,000. with available 20 percent tax credits
for income producing commercial buildings, such as a family owned mixed use apartment or
office building with a historic blade or marquee sign. However, the professional preservation,
accounting, design, legal, and tax consulting costs likely needed to achieve this would most
likely equal or surpass the savings those efforts would bear for a $50,000-$75,000. rehabilitation
stand-alone sign project.
164

Preservation Program Funds
The City and/or Hollywood Stakeholders should include a review of other preservation
program funds developed for repairs and rehabilitation of historic resources. None of the
following were designed specifically for historic commercial signage but would be easily
adapted using an estimated repair cost average that is anticipated to fall under $50,000 each.
165

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) publishes an Information Series on
preservation topics. The NTHP Information Series No. 78, 1993 provided a detailed review of
Preservation Revolving Funds that are typically more viable in a low land value markets. The
fund is developed by individual parties, or seed money obtained elsewhere, to fund a pool of
capital specifically for the acquisition and resale of historic buildings with the restriction that the

163
National Park Service website, accessed June 16, 2016, https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm.
164
Using a minimum soft cost for each professional consultant of $5,000 each for preservation, tax, legal, design and
accounting would be a minimum additional cost of $25,000. Even if saving an additional 20% of this cost of $5,000
The consulting costs are approximately 50% of the estimated $50,000 hard costs to rehabilitate a sign. In addition,
the tax credits are not final until certified as a completed project that can be denied if not done to the Secretary of
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, thus an added layer of uncertainty is more of a risk with such a low level of
financial gain.
165
See appendix G, LA City Council communication dated November 5, 1997, thesis page 191. Author
extrapolation based on repair reimbursement costs for neon sign of $27,000 each at 1997 per CF-97-2081 using
increased dollar values using an inflation calculator, $27,000.00 in 1997 had the same buying power as $40,265.92
in 2016. Annual inflation over this period was 2.13%, http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm,
accessed May 1, 2016.
100

proceeds are returned to the fund to be re-used for similar activities. Purchasing a historic
building where land values are high makes the purchase cost higher and therefore harder to
acquire.
166

These funds can also be structured as partnerships with local governments in a public-
private partnership, or with neighborhood organizations, developers and others. The capital can
be used to provide financing when otherwise not available in the mainstream financial market.
An example of this is the New York Landmark Conservancy Revolving Fund. It is a model for
small loans for specific rehabilitation projects. This program has successfully provided small
loans at a reasonable finance rate for the repair or rehabilitation of Historic Brownstone Façades
in New York. The program requires a lean against the property to ensure repayment. Since the
amounts are low, the NY Landmark Conservancy does not find a high rate of default.
167

During an interview with a NY Landmark Conservancy program representative, the
author posited that this type of preservation fund program might fill a similar niche need for
historic sign rehabilitation for family owned businesses when the traditional market may not be
an option, or when the cost of financing is unreasonably high. One possible challenge would be
securing the loan against a historic sign if it were not attached to a building or owned by the
building that it is attached to.
Another use of a preservation revolving fund might be to utilize funds to purchase a
historic sign threatened with demolition as an alternative mitigation measure at the end of a
demolition stay. This might facilitate the acquisition, repair, relocation and possible sale of
historic signs to museums, such as the Museum of Neon Art in nearby Glendale, California.
The NTHP Information series outlined some information on targeting resources,
determining project eligibility, management, liability issues, etc. However, there are other
revolving funds that can be studied to establish best practices for historic sign rights, repair and
rehabilitation using the “Success Matrix” table compiled by Olivia Mitchell in her thesis, “An
Evaluation of Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Funds, and Recommendations for the

166
NTHP Information Series, No. 78, 1993, copy obtained from Trudi Sandmeier, USC thesis committee member.
167
Interview with author to discuss feasibility of developing a revolving fund program in Hollywood, similar to the
NY Landmarks Conservancy program, for rehabilitating Historic commercial signs. Interview with Blair Walsh,
MS, New York Landmarks Conservancy Program Coordinator, February 2, 2015.
101

Establishment of Future Programs.”
168
A review of this intensity was also completed by
Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), as noted in the following paragraphs and goes
beyond the scope of this thesis but warrants further study to evaluate the use of a program in
Hollywood for the conservation of historic commercial signs.
The most recent report published by Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD),
supported by the 1772 Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, was released
in 2014 with survey data that validates points already mentioned above. Below are a few
excerpts and key points from the study that re-inforce the possible adaptability of a revolving
fund program as outlined in the report to rehabilitate and incentivize the conservation of historic
commercial signs in Hollywood.
169

• Real power of revolving funds is in their catalytic and exponential impacts.
• To ensure interventions are appropriate, 88% of funds adhere to Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and 79% attach easements to properties that revolve
through fund.
• Starting range for projects is $10,000 - $100,000.
• Fund Programs connect borrowers to preservation resources.
• Study found positive economic impacts for participating projects.
• Each fund had a signature project to highlight success.
• Partnerships with developers, banks, real estate professionals, and other foundations were
part of the success.
• Method of revolving funds and agreements are dictated by the project.
• Funds include projects and statistics on commercial projects.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation can also be a source of seed money. “Grants
from National Trust Preservation Funds (NTPF) are intended to encourage preservation at the

168
Olivia Mitchell, “An Evaluation of Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Funds, and Recommendations for the
Establishment of Future Programs” (Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, (2011), 183, accessed May 15,
2016, http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/165/.
169
The Revolving Fund Impact Report by the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) and its historic
preservation department is the result of a year-long study of 20 of the nation’s revolving funds. It provides
information on spotlight funds and fund profiles, “The Revolving Fund Impact Report” and Documentary accessed
May 15, 2016, http://blog.preservationleadershipforum.org/2014/11/18/the-revolving-fund/#.VzjWVjbmqUk.
102

local level by providing [initial money to develop] preservation projects.”
170
Examples of
eligible activities for a Sign Preservation Fund program might include hiring a real estate
development consultant to produce an economic feasibility study for the reuse of a threatened
structure; and sponsoring a community forum to develop a shared vision for the future of a
historic neighborhood.
171

Other Possible Funding Considerations
Community Benefits will most likely become available in the near future through the
development of a sign reduction program that will impact Sign Districts. The three versions of
the new citywide ordinance all include some variation on community benefit measures
associated with the creation of impacted sign district areas that include the rehabilitation of
streetscape, façade, and other improvements that include commercial signage. Hollywood SUD
will be impacted as the City encourages takedown of off-site signage in areas outside of sign
districts. Hollywood SUD has been used by the City as an example in presentations of a Tier 1
sign district. Given this scenario, it follows that the eventual off-site advertising signage will
migrate where allowed into proposed Tier 1 sign districts. This is an impact in the Tier 1
Hollywood area, which is the same area as the Hollywood SUD.
Another form of Community Benefits can be traced back to the Hollywood
Redevelopment Plan Cultural and Artistic Development was tied to new private development.
Each Council District also might outline a City of Los Angeles Council District Community
Benefits Package that might include signage repairs, or monument signs, as part of the
development agreements with the entitlements.
There are several Business Improvement Districts in Hollywood Community Plan
Area. The one that falls within the thesis boundary is the Hollywood Entertainment District,
BID. Each one has a fund developed by collecting contributions from the commercial businesses
within their boundaries to perform City services such as public safety and sidewalk cleaning.
There is a high concentration of historic signs in this BID area, such that this could be a funding

170
NTHP preservation funding information, accessed May 11, 2016,
http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/find-funding/preservation-funds-guidelines-
eligibility.html#.VyfgTzbmqUk.
171
Ibid.
103

source for seed money to start a revolving preservation fund, and warrants further exploration
that is beyond the scope of this thesis.
Business Improvement Districts are similar to the NTHP Main Street Design programs.
These programs focused on educating planners on

A focus on Design supports a community’s transformation by enhancing the physical
elements of downtown while capitalizing on the unique assets that set the commercial
district apart. Main Streets enhance their appeal to residents and visitors alike with
attention to public space through the creation of pedestrian friendly streets, inclusion of
public art in unexpected areas, visual merchandising, adaptive reuse of older and historic
buildings, more efficiently-designed buildings, transit oriented development, and much
more.
172

The City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs department presented and funded the Living
Urban Museum of Electric Neon Signs (LUMENS) Project with the help from Community
Redevelopment funds. Starting in 2000, Al Nodal, the prior head of the Cultural Affairs
Department, developed various City contracts with LUMENS to help administer the repair and
rehabilitation of historic neon signs in Los Angeles including Broadway and Plaza Hotel Signs in
Hollywood.
173

LUMENS is still an active project, but is funded on a contract basis for services. The
Museum of Neon Art, located in Glendale, California is now home to this non-profit
organization and is still an available organization to raise, receive, and manage funds to repair
and rehabilitate historic neon signs, not just in Los Angeles but nationwide.
The conservation of historic signs in Hollywood is complex, and requires more funding
to identify and repair the aging signs. historic signs need a champion to educate the public and
articulate the funding benefits under an agreed consensus among all public policy that all
qualified historic signs are to be considered public art. This could be achieved in a separate and
distinct historic sign program.

172
NTHP Main Street Approach Information, accessed May 11, 2016, http://www.preservationnation.org/main-
street/about-main-street/main-street-america/the-main-street-approach.html#.VyfkaDbmqUk.
173
City of Los Angeles, City Clerk Connect, City Council File No. 00-0363 and City Contract Nos. C101886,
C104171, C106013, accessed June 17, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=cfi.
104

Conclusion

City planners have been struggling to adopt a new citywide sign ordinance in Los
Angeles since the year 2000. To synthesize what led up to this struggle, and how it intersects
with the public policy that governs sign use, and therefore historic sign use, in Hollywood, the
following chronology was developed and populated with the key public policy related findings
discussed in this thesis.

Hollywood Historic Signs Key Public Policy Related Findings Chronology
1948 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Established
174

1962 City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance Adopted
1978 Hollywood Sign designated as LA HCM.
175

1986 Hollywood Commercial and Entertainment historic district listed on National Register of
Historic Places.
176

1986 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan adopted
1988 Hollywood Community Plan adopted
1996 City of Los Angeles Mills Act Program adopted
1997 Historic Hollywood Neon Sign District established by Cultural Affairs Department
1999 City of Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance adopted
1993 Specific sign, marquee or storefront nominations e.g. Egyptian Theater and Forecourt –
1999 Storefronts, Trianon and Neon Roof Sign, Pacific’s Cinerama Dome Theatre and
Marquee, Broadway Department Store and Neon Sign, Hollywood Plaza Hotel and Neon
Sign, Taft Building and Neon Sign.
2000 Citywide Sign Task Force established to review citywide sign ordinance.
2000 Non-conforming sign findings. The “Lion King” sign erected next door to the Pantages
Theater in Hollywood on the rooftop of a Hollywood historic building contributor to the

174
Date of establishment found on website reference, accessed May 5, 2016, http://www.crala.org/internet-
site/Projects/LA_Harbor/FAQ.cfm.
175
The Hollywood Sign HCM is located on the Griffith Park Perimeter on Mount Lee is within view from the
Hollywood Commercial area, but it is located outside of the thesis boundaries. The first and most iconic Sign in
Hollywood designated as HCM.
176
Survey of Buildings fifty years and older. Signage, as a character-defining features, was largely omitted from the
descriptions of character defining features.
105

National Register District, sparked debate between the Building and Safety
commissioners and City Council. The outcome was an approval with support from
preservation advocates and the Cultural Affairs Department stating that the new sign is in
keeping with the community’s historic character. The “Lion King” sign design was in
accord with the Hollywood Sign Task force that was developing an overlay zone. Other
illegal or non-conforming supergraphic signs or billboards peppered the area and spurred
the final drafting of a Hollywood Sign Overly Zone.
177

2004 Hollywood Supplemental Use District to provide sign use guidance and to stop large non-
conforming supergraphic signs from taking over the neighborhood.
2002 Supergraphics Policy and Ordinance.
178

2002 Off-Site Sign and Alteration of Off-Site Signs Ban Ordinance.
179

2010 Hollywood SUD Amendment. Sign use litigation in both the federal and state court
resulting from the City supergraphic sign ban required an amendment to the sign use
ordinance of 2004 to remove term “Supergraphics.”
180

2012 Hollywood Community Plan Update approved.
181

2013 City Mural Ordinance No. 182706, “Public Art Installation” definition amended to
exclude any installation with a commercial message.
182

2014 Hollywood Community Plan Injunction reverts to 1988 Hollywood Community Plan
183

177
City Clerk Connect, Council File 00-1663, 6253 Hollywood Boulevard/Modifying Sign Regulations, Adopted
Motion, August 24, 2000, accessed June 18, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=ORD.
178
City Clerk Connect, Supergraphics Ordinance 174517 new definition of Supergraphics and allowed under certain
circumstances, Supergraphics Policy, CF 98-1474, archive history, June 5, 2002, accessed June 18, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=ORD.
179
City Clerk Connect, Ordinance 174547 led to off-site sign advertising company challenging ban of both off-site
signs and supergraphic signs. PLUM Motion and CF 08-3386, December 12, 2008, accessed June 18, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=ORD.
180
PLUM Motion and CF 08-3386, December 12, 2008 outlines history and highlights issue of existing off-site sign
conversions from static to digital creating a visual blight that impacted quality of life and public safety issues.
Attached motion under appendix R.
181
City Clerk Connect, Ordinance 182173, June 19, 2012. CF 12-0303, accessed June 18, 2016,
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=ORD.
182
City Clerk Connect, Ordinance No. 182706, accessed June 15, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-
0923_ord_182706.pdf.
183
City of Los Angeles Zoning Information Injunction ZI NO. 2433 revised, rescinding the 2012 Hollywood
Community Plan and reverting to 1988 Hollywood Community Plan, accessed May 5, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/cpu/hollywood/text/HCPUINJUNCTION_RevisedZI-final.pdf, and CF-0303 S4, April 2,
2014, Ordinance 182960.
106

2015 City planners have been meeting regularly to finalize the new citywide sign ordinance.
In December of 2015, the LA Planning Commission ruled that they intend for the City to
grandfather existing Hollywood SUD along with a list of others. This recent decision is
important for the community to recognize the impacts as development starts to surge
within Hollywood.
2016 Re:code LA project is in progress with a beta program and education outreach to educate
the public on the coming changes.
2016 Hollywood Community Plan Update scoping meeting set for May 16, 2016 to re-
introduce an updated Hollywood Community Plan. The proposed Hollywood Community
Plan Proposed Text document is for reference only, dated November, 2013.
184

This chronology provides context for City planners to review and reflect on how various
public policies shaped the built environment, with respect to sign use, and historic sign
conservation. In each case study reviewed in this thesis, a loophole was presented to illustrate the
need for Hollywood to review existing public policies governing historic sign use.
The Musso & Frank rooftop sign erected in 1954 is an example of a sign that was not
clearly identified as a contributing historic character defining feature or sign, partly because it
falls outside of the historic district’s period of significance. This nuance is coupled with the fact
that the sign was considered to be a contributor to the Historic Hollywood Neon District, a
historic sign district that was never codified. The Mark Twain Hotel rooftop neon sign was also
identified as a contributor to the same historic sign district, and thus also falls into this same
loophole. Relying on a possible discretionary compliance review for resources like these and
those identified in SurveyLA within a project plan is not a conservation plan. These historic sign
resources lack the triggers needed for City planning to perform historic preservation permit
compliance reviews, and explore conservation treatment plan options during rehabilitation.
The second case study, the Vogue Theater marquee digital conversion, suffered from the
same codification loophole, and also highlighted that the City Planning compliance review
process was flawed. The digital conversion interpretations by City Planning staff led to an initial
approval, allowing the removal of character defining features of a historic sign. Ultimately, the

184
City planning website, City planning environmental scoping meeting, accessed May 5, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/cpu/hollywood.html.
107

compromise, prompted by preservation advocacy efforts, resulted in the salvage of historic
materials prior to any demolition, and this was instructive.
The findings in this analysis suggest that Hollywood is uniquely positioned to: 1)
propose and enact the codification of the 1997 Historic Hollywood Neon District; 2) expand
those district boundaries to include historic signs other than neon; and 3) Eliminate the word
neon and add the word “sign” in the district name such that this could be a stand-alone historic
Hollywood sign district that is administered through the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic
Resources (OHR), a preservation planning department. It is recommended that the OHR use the
Tucson Historic Landmarks Sign program as a best practice model. The elements to be included
in this program are informed by the Tucson program to develop and implement strategies to
close the loopholes identified in this thesis that jeopardize historic signs in Hollywood. The 1997
Historic Hollywood Neon District was approved in 1997 and would meet the grandfathering date
currently proposed under any of the proposed citywide sign ordinance versions.
The Burbank HS ordinance was recently adopted. City planners and Hollywood planners
should view this as an insight. Another City in southern California has identified similar historic
sign use loopholes in their existing municipal codes and has created a unique citywide historic
sign ordinance and program to remedy these loopholes. These public policy changes must go
beyond just amending zone text definitions. Changes must include additional program elements,
such as sign surveys, applications, registers, and treatment plans, to provide clear identification,
process, and procedures for historic signs. Burbank’s HS program is generally mirroring its
process for designating historic buildings, but it differs in that the designation ultimately requires
owner consent, and affords the owners an ability to terminate the designation with conditions.
While the latter is not an ideal public policy to conserve historic signs on historic buildings, it is
a distinction is particularly important for historic signs on non-historic buildings, or a historic
freestanding sign on non-historic parcel or landscape, such that it would trigger demolition stays
not otherwise afforded to these historic resources allowing time to relocate or salvage historic
signs.
185

185
City of Burbank, Community Development Department, “Historic Sign Ordinance Staff Report,” accessed May
17, 2016, http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7335&meta_id=291685.
108

The proposed Hollywood Historic Sign District key elements include: 1) a new historic
sign survey: 2) a new application process similar to Tucson program; 3) a new historic sign
register; 4) a new historic sign treatment plan based on the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
rehabilitation; 5) a demolition stay; and 6) a conservation incentives plan that tethers financial
support to maintaining the historic sign or historic building. This new stand-alone historic
Hollywood sign district program can be introduced through the Los Angeles citywide sign
ordinance update, the Hollywood Community Plan update, and the re:code LA project.

Recommendations for Next Steps
The next steps to creating a stand-alone historic Hollywood sign district would be to
follow the best practices from the Tucson and Burbank stand-alone citywide historic sign
programs and draw out the items needed to close the loopholes in existing public policy. Below
is a list of next steps created to pinpoint an action item list for City representatives in support of
conserving historic sign resources in Hollywood.

1) Use the information developed in this thesis as an information base for survey and
context.
2) Compile context statements from most recent surveys.
3) Crowd source historic sign nominations based on the 2009 Hollywood CRA survey
context. The commercial areas of Hollywood have not been fully inventoried, including
within in the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District. Using the
National Trust, “This Place Matters” campaign is an inexpensive way to gather the data,
much in the same way Tucson did. The recent SurveyLA Hollywood section included but
was not a complete canvas on identifying eligible historic commercial signs in
Hollywood.
4) Complete the codification of the Historic Hollywood Neon District into the LAMC under
the umbrella of the re:code LA project.
5) Expand boundaries and amend the HHNSD to include key elements of recent HLS and
HS ordinances from other cities or communities to provide updated City framework for a
new public policy in Hollywood.
a) Separate and distinct local historic designations and/or register.
109

b) Promote conservation of signs that are between twenty-five and fifty years old.
c) Identify and register historic signs attached to a non-historic building.
d) Require specific demolition requirements to promote salvage or relocation.
e) Create an application and treatment plan using Tucson HLS plan a model.
f) Expand to include all types of signs and may need to eliminate the word “Neon” from
the title of the HHNSD district to be Historic Hollywood Sign District. Example of
other signs to include would be painted wall signs or ghost signs.
g) Close loophole for “sign parcels” on historic buildings to tether the financial revenue
generated by off-site signs to the buildings that they are attached to using the Mills
Act Property Contract as a model to account for reinvestment in the historic building.
h) Amend definition of public art installation to exempt designated historic signs as
cultural resources and public art such that funding can be obtained from the public
arts program.

Suggested Additional Study Beyond the Scope of Thesis
Similar case studies and analysis using local public policy should be conducted in other
communities in the United States using this thesis as a guide or resource. The research suggests
that despite the many historic resource surveys, city sign ordinance updates, and community
planning there continues to be loopholes relating to historic signs. Below are ten additional
topics that go beyond the scope of this thesis, but could add to this body of research.

1) Specific historic sign resources survey conducted throughout the City of Los Angeles
including Hollywood. A future survey beyond the scope of this thesis should include a
Historic Sign crowd source review that will create categories for the following eligible
Hollywood Historic Sign District:
a) Sign is designated and clearly stated as LA HCM in the resource name.
b) Existing building is eligible district contributor, but unclear if sign included.
c) Existing building is a contributor, with some mention of signage included in
nomination.
d) Existing building is a contributor, signage not included in description.
e) Sign is attached to a non-historic building.
110

2) Review of the final proposed citywide sign ordinance since it is unclear which version A,
B, B+ or any other variation thereof will be presented to City Council for approval. This
is an opportunity for future review that goes beyond the scope of what is available at the
time this thesis was completed.
3) Update the NPS Preservation Brief No. 25 on historic signs. The following are a few
suggestions as part of what could be a full update, an update that goes beyond the scope
of this thesis:
a) The role of a historic sign specific survey should be included as a new section as a
best practice. It is the basis of both the Tucson HLS and Burbank HS programs, and is
essential to eliminate the survey loopholes that can be created by overlapping
surveys.
b) The sub-section under preserving historic signs, on reusing historic signs. This
section addresses character-defining features, but should go on to include more
information on the impacts of material modifications as noted in the thesis Case
Study 2: Vogue Marquee Digital Display Conversion 2015. It is also important to
keep samples of the original materials that will be replaced for future study. The new
digital and project sign types that utilize the building as a screen should be mentioned
as a reversible or temporary new sign compatible with existing signs or buildings.
c) The topic of cumulative impacts of modernization when converting static displays to
digital should also be discussed and addressed.
4) The topic of how existing code translates into the new re:code LA warrants future study
and goes beyond the scope of this paper. In theory, the analysis provided in this thesis
would remain unchanged as re:code LA will rely on existing public policy as the basis to
rewrite and incorporate into the web-based code. The City is expected to complete a
citywide zoning code ready for adoption by the year 2017.
5) Sign parcels and the transfer of rights to be limited to a term-lease contract, such that
signs cannot be owned separate and apart from the historic building owner or that the
sign parcel revenue must be tethered to the building using the Mills Act Property
Contract as a model. The feasibility of this goes beyond the scope of this thesis but
warrants further research.
111

6) Further study of sign types, descriptions, and discussion of terminologies such as on and
off-site advertising goes beyond the scope of this thesis, while it has been well-
documented and discussed in many surveys, context statements, books, city ordinances,
and the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief No. 25 there could be an argument to
standardize these descriptions for City planners to rely on.
7) The study of material conservation goes beyond the scope of this thesis but warrants
further study as to the useful life and specific Historic Sign treatment plans.
8) The research and study of the original historic sign manufacturers in Hollywood could
result in a list of master commercial sign design professionals to expand on the design or
engineering professional descriptions for historic sign resources. Based on City Building
and Safety department permit information in appendix F in chronological order of the
following is a list of sign manufacturers:

Mfg. /Contractor Sign Resource Year
Greenwood Advertising Mark Twain Rooftop 1923
Pacific Steel Co. KEWB Warner Towers 1929
Electrical Prod. Corp.
(Blaine Noice, Engineer)
Kress Metal and Neon Letters 1934/1935
Pacific Neon Signs Miceli’s Pizzeria 1952
Electrical Prod. Corp. Frolic Room Wall Sign 1952
Triple “A” Neon Knickerbocker Marquee 1954
20
th
Century Lites, Inc. Mark Twain Proj. Blade 1954
Artistic Neon Co.
(G.H. Wilson, Engineer)
Musso & Frank Rooftop 1954
QRS Neon Corp.
(G.H. Wilson, Engineer)
Knickerbocker Rooftop 1957
Interstate Neon Corp. Mark Twain Wall Sign 1962
Federal Sign & Signal Supply Sergeant Rooftop 1964
Interstate Neon Corp.
(B.L. Prenovich, Engineer)
Newberry School of Beauty 1964
Table 5.1: Manufacturers of sign resources in chronological order. Summary compiled by
author and sourced from appendix F City permit information.

9) Research and documentation of historic signs that have been trademarked and any
corresponding revenue generated from exploiting that trademark.
112

10) Research and documentation of non-conforming, eligible or designated, historic signs
that do not have a valid sign permit issued by the City Department of Building and
Safety.

113

Bibliography
American Legal Publishing Corporation. Why Codify? . n.d.
http://www.amlegal.com/codification-services/codification/ (accessed May 11, 2016).
Andreozzi, Lori. "Preserving Neon History." Sign Builder Illustrated 20, no.143, 05, 2007: 50-
53,12. http://search.proquest.com/docview/213744031?accountid=14749.
Appelbaum, Barbara. "Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility." Journal of the American Institute
for Conservation, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 65-73. 1987. Jstor doi: 10.2307/3179456 (accessed
April 1, 2015).
Architectural Resources Group. Historic Downtown LOS ANGELES Design Guidelines. Design
Guidelines, Los Angeles: Consortium of Interest Groups including the Los Angeles
Conservancy, the Historic Core Business Improvement District, The Downtown Center
BID and Fashion District BID, 2002.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. Burbank Historic Sign Survey. Historic Resources Survey
Report, Burbank: City of Burbank Planning and Transportation Division, 2014.
Association of Environmental Professionals. California Environmetal Quality Act. Palm Desert,
CA: California Association of Environmental Professionals, 2010.
Auer, Michael. "Preservation Assistance, "Preservation Brief No. 25"." U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service Cultural Resources. 1991. . http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-
to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/25Preserve-Brief-Signs.pdf (accessed
March 22, 2014).
Besley, Sara, interview by author. Hollywood Entertainment District BID Representative (July
28, 2014).
Brian Goeken, AICP, Planner & Historic Preservation Section/Planning Division. "National
Register of Historic Places." National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior.
1997. http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/97001212.pdf (accessed March 22,
2014).
California Legislative . Chapters. n.d. http://leginfo.ca.gov.
California Planning & Development Report. About. n.d. https://www.cp-dr.com/about.
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. "Historic Resource Survey." 2010.
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Hollywood_CRA_Survey_Report_0.pdf. (accessed
May 11, 2016).
City of Burbank Community Developement Department. "Planning Board Meetings and
Minutes." City of Burbank. November 9, 2015. http://burbankca.gov/departments/city-
clerk-s-office/meeting-agendas-minutes (accessed May 17, 2016).

114

City of Burbank Community Developement Department, Assistant Planner Oral Report. "City
Council Archived Meeting Video, Agenda Item K.1." City of Burbank California City
Council Meeting. April 7, 2015.
http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=6761 (accessed May
8, 2016).
City of Burbank Community Development Department. "City Council Meetings and Agenda."
Historic Sign Ordinance, Project No 14-0003761, Zone Text Amendment, Staff Report.
May 17, 2016.
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=2304&meta_id=291
436 (accessed May 17, 2016).
City of Burbank Heritage Commission. "Heritage Commission Meeting Minutes." City of
Burbank. January 9, 2014.
http://burbank.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=burbank_e19686050abf01bde34
81820cdcd8e8a.pdf&view=1 (accessed May 20, 2014).
City of Burbank. "Heritage Commission Meeting Minutes." City of Burbank. May 8, 2014.
file:///G:/USC%20Spring%202014%20Semester/Thesis%20Prep%20691a/Thesis%20Re
search/Hollywood%20National%20Register%20Nomination/Burbank%20Heritage%20C
ommission%20May%208%20Special%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf (accessed June 17,
2014).
City of Burbank Municipal Code. Duty to Maintain Structures and Premises. August 17, 2012.
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/?Burbank10/Burbank100109.html#10-1-
934. (accessed May 17, 2016).
City of Los Angeles. "Bringing Back Broadway." Historic Sign District. May 7, 2014.
http://www.bringingbackbroadway.com/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@bbb_contributo
r/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_028147.pdf (accessed May 20, 2014).
—. "Building Records System Database." Vers. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety
Permits, Various Searches. Department of City Planning. 1900-1990.
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/idispublic/ (accessed September 12, 2015/2016).
—. "Bureua of Engineering." ZIMAS. n.d.
file:///G:/USC%20Spring%202014%20Semester/Thesis%20Prep%20691a/Thesis%20Re
search/HED/Map%20Sheet%20144B181.pdf (accessed June 17, 2014).
—. "Council File Management System." LACityClerk Connect. n.d.
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=c.search&tab=cfi (accessed
2014-2016).
—. Department of Cultural Affairs. n.d. http://culturela.org/ (accessed April 26, 2016).
—. "Los Angeles City Directory." Los Angeles Public Libarary. 1918-1942.
http://rescarta.lapl.org/ResCarta-Web/jsp/RcWebBrowse.jsp (accessed November 14,
2014).
115

—. Official City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Effective November 12, 1936 with amendments
published as Revision No. 54. 2016.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lapz/municipalcodechapteriplannin
gandzoningco?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lapz_ca (accessed April 12,
2016).
City of Los Angeles Planning Department. "Code Studies." Los Angeles City Planning. 2006.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/FinalDraftHollywoodSUD.pdf
(accessed 2015).
—. Commissions and Hearings. n.d. http://cityplanning.lacity.org/.
City of Los Angeles. "Proposed Ordinances, Final Draft Hollywood SUD." Department of City
Planning. n.d.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/FinalDraftHollywoodSUD.pdf
(accessed January 21, 2014).
—. "Proposed Ordinances, Hollywood Sign District." Department of City Planning. n.d.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Billboards/HollywoodSignDistrict.pdf
(accessed January 21, 2014).
—. Re:code LA. n.d. http://recode.la/about (accessed May 11, 2016).
—. ZIMAS. n.d. http://zimas.lacity.org/.
City of Nashville, Tennessee. "Ordinance No. BL2011-922." Metro Government of Nashville &
Davidson County, Tennessee. June 7, 2011.
http://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2007_2011/bl2011_922.pdf (accessed
March 22, 2014).
City of Newport Beach. Municipal Code. n.d.
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/frameless/index.pl?path=../html/New
portBeach20/NewportBeach2042.html#20.42.180. (accessed May 5, 2016).
City of Santa Monica. City Planning Minutes. 1997.
2016http://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Planning-
Commission/1997/19971105/m971105.html.
City of Tucson, Arizona. "Designation Terms & Conditions Form." Historic Sign Landmarks
(HLS) Preservation Program. June 28, 2011.
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/hcd/THPO/termsconditionsform_designation-
a0037436.pdf (accessed March 22, 2014).
—. Historic Landmark Signs (HLS) Preservation Program. June 28, 2011.
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/historicsigns (accessed March 22, 2014).
—. "Historic Sign Landmark Ordinance." Historic Landmark Signs (HLS) Preservation
Program. June 28, 2011. http://www.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/dsd/SIGNS/SCA-
11-01%20adopted%20HLS%20ordinance.pdf (accessed March 22, 2014).
116

—. "Proposition 207 Waiver Form." Historic Landmark Signs (HLS) Preservation Program.
June 28, 2011.
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/hcd/THPO/prop207_waiverform-
a0031823.pdf (accessed March 22, 2014).
—. "Treatment Plan/Application for Historic Landmark Sign Designation." Historic Landmark
Signs (HLS) Preservation Program. June 28, 2011.
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/hcd/THPO/HLS_TreatmentPlan_Final.pdf
(accessed March 22, 2014).
Community Redevelopment Agency. CRA/LA. n.d. http://crala.org.
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) Board. "Hollywood
District and Franklin District Urban Design Standards and Guidelines." CRA/LA, Former
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. March 30, 2010.
http://www.crala.net/internet-
site/projects/hollywood/upload/cra_draft_hollywood_ud_web%20100330.pdf (accessed
March 22, 2014).
Durate, Yami, interview by author. City of Los Angeles Mural Program, Arts Associate (June 15,
2016).
Dwan, Lois. "Musso & Frank Grill." Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1969: N42.
Esperdey, Gabrielle M. Modernizing Main Street: Architecture and Consumer Culture in the
New Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Gelernter, Mark. A History of Buildings in their Cultural American and Technological Context
Architecture. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 1999.
Getty. "Material Conservation." n.d.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/science/plastics/index.html (accessed
May 8, 2016).
Gromlich, Bonnie Flanagan. "Design Guidelines for Historic Districts Order No. 1339414."
University of Georgia. 1989.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/303739247?accountid=14749. (accessed March 22,
2014).
Gudis, Catherine. Buyways: Billboards, Automobiles, and the American Landscape. New York:
Routledge, 2004.
Hathaway, Dennis. "Fate of L.A.'s Digital Billboards: Legal Opinions Clash."
BanBillboardBlight. September 7, 2013. http://banbillboardblight.org/fate-of-l-a-s-
digital-billboards-legal-opinions-clash/ (accessed January 21, 2014).
—. "Legal Wars: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Hollywood Supergraphic Sign Case."
BanBillboardBlight. November 6, 2011. http://banbillboardblight.org/?s=Hollywood
(accessed January 21, 2014).
117

Herson, Albert I. and Gary A. Lucks. California Environmental Law and Policy; A practical
guide. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 2008.
Hise, Greg. Magnetic Los Angeles, Planning the Twentieth Century Metropolis. Baltimore and
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Hise, William Deverell and Greg. Land of Sunshine, An Environmental History of Metropolitan
Los Angeles. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pitsburgh Press, 2005.
Historic Resources Group & Pasadean Heritage for the City of Pasadena. "Cultural Resources of
the Recent Past Historic Context Report." California State Parks Office of Historic
Preservation. 2007.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/pasadena%20context%20report%20final%20rev
ised%202007%2010%2010.pdf (accessed March 22, 2014).
Holland, Michael. "Council File 97-2081, Historic Hollywood Neon District." Los Angeles City
Archives. 1997. e-mail attachment (accessed March 9, 2016).
Hollywood Businesss Improvement District. "Neighborhood Maps." Hollywood Business
Improvement District. 2009 -2018.
http://www.hollywoodbid.org/Local/Files/71_New%20Boundary%20Map.pdf (accessed
March 22, 2014).
Hollywood Entertainment District. "Hollywood Entertainment District Plans and Reports." Only
in Hollywood. 2014.
file:///G:/USC%20Spring%202014%20Semester/Thesis%20Prep%20691a/Thesis%20Re
search/HED/Planning-Report-2014-final.pdf (accessed June 17, 2014).
Hollywood Entertianment Distict BID. only in Hollywood Business Improvement District. n.d.
http://onlyinhollywood.org/hollywood-bid/.
Hollywood Heritage Inc. About Us. 1985. http://www.hollywoodheritage.org/#!about-us/c149x
(accessed Septemeber 11, 2015).
Hollywood Heritage, Inc. "Hollywood History Files." Time Line for Hollywood Community
History 1769-1919. Los Angeles: Hollywood Heritage Archives, n.d.
—. "National Register of Historic Places, Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment
District." National Park Service. April 4, 1985.
http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/85000704.pdf (accessed June 16, 2016).
Jennings, Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings. American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.
Jonathan Mabry, Ph.D., interview by author. City of Tucson Historic Preservation Officer
(October 21, 2015).
Keller, Kevin J., interview by author. Director of Planning and Housing Policy, Office of Mayor
Garcetti (April 22, 2014).
118

Kelsen, Keith. Unleashing the Power of Digital Signage: Content Strategies for the 5th Screen.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2010.
Koga, Kim, interview by author. Museum of Neon Art Executive Director Glendale, California,
(February 26, 2016).
Landry, Amanda, interview by author. Associate Planner, City of Burbank Planning &
Transportation Division (April 30, 2019).
Longstreth, Richard W. City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and
Retailing in Los Angeles 1920-1950. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997.
—. The Buildings of Mainstreet: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. Walnut Creek,
California: Alta Mira Press, 2000.
—. The drive-in, the supermarket, and the transformation of commerical space in Los Angeles,
1914-1941. Cambridge, Mass: MIT PRESS, 1999.
Los Angeles Conservancy. Locations. n.d. https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/el-capitan-
theatre-and-office-building. (accessed May 11, 2016).
Los Angeles Times. "ProQuest Historical Newpapers." ProQuest. October 24, 1928.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
62157048?accountid=14749 (accessed December 1, 2014).
—. "ProQuest Historical Newspapers." ProQuest. December 23, 1934.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
63317726?accountid=14749 (accessed May 13, 2016).
—. "ProQuest Historical Newspapers." ProQuest. December 14, 1923.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
61556043?accountid=14749 (accessed November 24, 2014).
Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA and London : The MIT Press, 1993.
Lynxwiler, J. Eric, interview by author. LUMENS program and Museum of Neon Art
representative Glendale, California, (February 26, 2015).
Mabry, Jonathan, interview by author. Tuscon, Arizona, Historic Preservation Officer (October
21, 2015).
McAvoy, Christy, interview by author. Hollywood Heritage Inc Founder and Board Member
(September 11, 2015).
Miller, Stephen R. "HISTORIC SIGNS, COMMERCIAL SPEECH, AND THE LIMITS OF
PRESERVATION." Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 25, no. 2. 2010.
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/42843035 (accessed June 12, 2016).
119

Mitchell, Olivia. An Evalutation of Historic Presrvation Revolving Loan Funds, and
Recommendations for the Establishment of Future Programs. Masters Thesis,
Philadelphia, PA.: University of Pennsylvania,, 2011.
Mural Conservancy of Los Angeles. Murals. n.d. http://www.muralconservancy.org/.
Musso & Frank Grill. "Content." Musso & Frank Grill. 2014.
http://www.mussoandfrankgrill.com/wp-
content/uploads/sidebar_pictures/Frank's%20Cafe.jpg (accessed November 1, 2014).
—. "History." Musso & Frank Grill. n.d. http://mussoandfrank.com/history/ (accessed June 17,
2016).
—. "Modernizing and Remodeling Opening Day Letter." LA Daily Mirror. 1923.
http://ladailymirror.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/musso_rotate_02.jpg?w=624&h=917
(accessed November 1, 2014).
National Park Service. Technical Preservation Services. n.d. https://www.nps.gov/.
National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Main Street Approach." n.d.
http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/find-funding/preservation-funds-guidelines-
eligibility.html#.VyfgTzbmqUk (accessed May 11, 2016).
—. This Place Matters. n.d. https://savingplaces.org/this-place-matters#.V2S8FzbmqUk
(accessed May 14, 2016).
Portella, A.A. "Evaluating Commercial Signs in Historic Streetscapes: The Effects of the Control
of Advertising and Signage on Users Sense of Envirornmental Quality." Oxford Brookes
University (United Kingdom). Order No. U232793 2007.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/301680082?accountid=14749. (accessed March 22,
2014).
Public Resources Code. "2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines." California Natural Resources.
2014. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2014_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf
(accessed January 21, 2015).
Robert A. Young, PE. Historic Preservation Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Wiley, 2008.
Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. Learning from Las Vegas: The
Forgotten Symbolism of Architectureal Form. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT
Press, 1977.
Rowberry, Sara C. Bronin and Ryan. Historic Preservation Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN:
West Academic, 2014.
Savannah College of Art and Design. "The Revolving Fund Impact Report." National Trust for
Historic Preservation Preservation Leadership. 2016. ,
http://blog.preservationleadershipforum.org/2014/11/18/the-revolving-
fund/#.VzjWVjbmqUk.
120

Sculle, John A. Jakle and Keith A. Signs in America's Auto Age: Signatures of Landscape and
Place. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 2004.
Sherman, Roger. L.A. Under the Influence, the Hidden Logic of Urban Property. Minneapolis
and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
Shigley, William Fulton and Paul. Guide to California Planning, fourth edition. Point Arena,
California: Solano Press Books, 2012.
Smiley, David J. Pedestrian Modern: Shopping and American Architecture, 1925-1956.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
Starr, Kevin. "The Musso & Frank Grill in Hollywood." In American Places: Encounters with
History, by William E. Leuchtenburg, 283-293. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Stipe, Robert E. A Richer Heritage, Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chappel
Hill and London Historic : The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc. Hollywood Entertainment District Sign Recommendations.
Commercial Sign Study and Recommendations, Los Angeles: Hollywood Entertainment
District, 2000.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. "Meetings." CRA/LA. April
16, 2009. http://www.crala.com/internet-
site/Meetings/Board_Agenda_2009/upload/April_16_2009_Item11.pdf (accessed
September 13, 2015).
Treu, Martin. Signs, Streets, and Storefronts: A History of Architecture and Graphics along
America's Commercial Corridors. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.
Tribune Publishing LLC, Obituary. "Los Angeles Times: Helene Toulet; Widow of Musso and
Frank Grill Founder." Proquest. August 7, 1995.
search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/printviewfile?accountid=14749 (accessed
November 22, 2014).
United States National Park Service. "Archeology and Historic Preservation, Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines, Preservation Terminology." National Park Service.
n.d. https://nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_10.htm (accessed May 11, 2016).
Urban Studio. Hollywood Boulevard District and Franklin Avenue Design District. Urban
Design Standards and Guidelines Draft, Los Angeles: CRA/LA, 2010.
Vitu, Teya. "Bright Lights Coming Back to Diving Lady Sign." Downtown Tucsonan, Downtown
Tucson Partnership. March 15, 2012. http://www.downtowntucson.org/2012/03/bright-
lights-coming-back-to-diving-lady-sign/ (accessed November 28, 2014).
Walsh, Blaire, interview by author. The New York Landmarks Conservancy (February 2, 2015).
121

Wolf, Gary. "Review of, 'Learning from Las Vegas'." Journal of teh Society of Architectual
Historians 32 (3). 1973. Jstor doi: 10.2307/988800 (accessed May 15, 2016).

122

Appendices
Appendix A: Thesis Boundaries Map.
186

186
Thesis Boundary Map by author using QGIS program, 2016. GNU General Public License, Version 2, June
1991, Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-
1307, USA; and OpenStreetmap.
123

Appendix B: 2006 Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District Boundaries
187

187
LA City Planning Map, Amended Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District (2006), accessed 2015,
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Other/FinalDraftHollywoodSUD.pdf

124

Appendix C: Thesis and Public Policy Boundaries Map
188

188
Citations same as Figure 4.1, map is larger in scale. Using QGIS processing tool the thesis study area polygon
measures one square mile.
125

Appendix D: List of Commercial Signs to be Surveyed for Historic Status
The following list compiled by the author is attached to illustrate the types of signs after a
windshield survey conducted between 2013 and 2015 that are prevalent in Hollywood within the
thesis boundaries and to establish a basis for a future intensive survey that is beyond the scope of
this thesis.
126

127

128

Appendix E: Commercial Historic Sign Examples in Hollywood

This section provides a visual reference to the types of commercial signs that are within
the thesis boundaries and that are listed in appendix E, author’s list of commercial signs to be
surveyed for qualified Historic Sign compliance review status. These were selected to illustrate
the types of signs not yet clearly identified as qualified historic signs for historic preservation
review because they fall under one of the following five categories identified by author:

1. Building is a LA HCM, and/or HBCE Historic district contributor or eligible contributor,
yet unclear if commercial signage identified is a character defining feature of building.

2. Building is HBCE historic district contributor, with mention of commercial signage, may
or may not be included as a historic sign or character defining feature of building.

3. Building is HBCE historic district contributor, commercial signage identified not
included in description.

4. Commercial Sign identified as contributor to the 1997 Historic Hollywood Neon District,
yet historic sign never codified for historic review in ZIMAS, similar to Vogue Theater
compliance review findings under thesis case study chapter 2.

5. Commercial Sign is located on non-historic building, sign identified by author as a
possible historic sign resource that requires additional research, and/or the sign has not
yet been identified in a City survey as a qualified historic sign.

One of the reasons that some of the commercial signage was not included in an original
survey was that the period of significance may have been different that the date the sign was
installed. Since then, there may be a new context in which the commercial sign has become
significant. For this reason, the building, and safety permits are included to provide information
about the sign manufacturer or contractor, description of the dimensions, materials, location, and
date of the sign installation.
129

Miceli’s Pizzeria, 1646 Las Palmas Avenue, 1952 Neon Blade Sign, Photo by Author April 26, 2014.
Compare sign in photo to original sketch submitted as part of the City Building and Safety Department, Permit
No. LA23668, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={fd4ae7b8-b319-43b5-990b-
98a1a4ebec68}.

Author Historic Sign Category: 5

130

131

132

The Knickerbocker, 1714 No. Ivar Street, 1954 Hotel Entrance Marquee/Wall Mounted Neon Letters, Ivar Street,
Photo by Author April 26, 2014. Below, Knickerbocker, 1954 LA 91962,
Compare signs in photo to original sketch submitted as part of the City Building and Safety Department Permit No.
LA91962, accessed May 7, 2016.
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={5b7d13be-7e51-4a09-be6e-
fbe45f720666}.

Author Historic Sign Category: 3
133

134

135

The Knickerbocker, 1714 Ivar Street, 1957 Hotel Rooftop Neon Open Panel Letter Sign, Ivar Street, Photo by
author, April 26, 2014 Knickerbocker, 1957 LA 62525, compare sign placement in photo to original sketch
submitted as part of the City Building and Safety Department Permit No. LA62525, accessed, May 7, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={5b7d13be-7e51-4a09-be6e-
fbe45f720666}.

Author Historic Sign Category: 3, 4

136

137

138

Musso & Frank Grill, 6667 Hollywood Boulevard, 1954 Rooftop Neon Sign, Photo by author April 26, 2014.
Compare sign placement in photo to original sketch submitted as part of the City Building and Safety Department
Permit No. LA 83216, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={9fc53848-6e4f-4c19-a9fc-
ed8050500fec}.

Author Historic Sign Category: 2, 4

139

140

141

Hotel Mark Twain, 1622 Wilcox Avenue, April 26, 2014, photo by author, outside of Hollywood SUD, within
CRA Boundaries. The rooftop neon sign is listed as contributor to the 1997 Historic Hollywood Sign District, yet
not flagged for historic review by City. You can see proximity to Warner Theater rooftop towers behind the hotel. In
addition to rooftop sign that appears to be unaltered, there was a blade and wall sign that may be slightly altered.
This warrants further photographic research to determine alterations as there are no specific sign permits located
during author’s research to cite the alterations. Compare signs in photo to the three original sign permits, two with
sketches, submitted to the City Department of Building and Safety as listed below:

• 1923, Rooftop Double Sided Neon Electric Sign, City of Los Angeles Permit No. LA51780, no sketch
provided and listed under alteration verses the electric sign application for the 1954 projecting blade sign,
accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={5b125206-c908-449c-90f5-
43f90ad01682}
Author Historic Sign Category: 4, 5

• 1954, Projecting Electric Blade Sign, City of Los Angeles Permit No. LA20946, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={9e58eb7a-36d8-4103-aa96-
ddf16dc4280e}.
Author Historic Sign Category: 5

• 1962, V Projecting Metal and Plastic Neon Wall Sign, City of Los Angeles Permit No. LA28964, accessed
June 16, 2016, http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={1061e5bb-
400e-434b-82b7-f2a6ebb2fc96}
Author Historic Sign Category: 5
142

143

144

145

146

147

148

The Supply Sergeant, 6664 Hollywood Boulevard, 1964 Rooftop Neon Sign, Photo by Author April 26, 2014.
Compare sign placement in photo to original location sketch submitted as part of the City Building and Safety
Department LA Permit No. LA 82876, accessed May 7, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={978146d3-b13b-4037-813f-
5624a294186d}.

Author Historic Sign Category: 5

149

150

151

Frolic Room, 1948 Neon Wall Mounted Sign, 6245 Hollywood Boulevard, Photo by Author April 26, 2014.
Compare sign placement in photo to original sketch submitted as part of the City Building and Safety Department
LA Permit No. 26169, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={d6decee1-1e4e-4ca2-ad63-
221ffaacf567},

Author Historic Sign Category: 3, 4
152

153

154

Pacific Warner Theater, 6423-6445 Hollywood Boulevard, 1929 Integrated Pylons, Rooftop Sign, Radio
Towers with Neon Lettering as Signs, Hollywood Boulevard, Photo by author April 26, 2014. Compare photo to
information provided in KEWB Warner Radio Tower Structure Permit, accessed May 7, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={1af7558c-c636-46f4-91d1-
802d39d918e1}. Additional research is needed to ascertain when the neon letters on the radio towers were altered
from KEWB Warner to Read Pacific.

Author Historic Sign Category: 1

155

156

157

Kress, 6606 Hollywood Boulevard, 1934 Building Integrated Wall Mounted Neon Lettering High Rise Rooftop
Sign, Hollywood Boulevard, Photo by Author April 26, 2014, Compare photo to information provided in the
Department of Building and Safety Permits, accessed May 7, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={85f270df-f903-411e-9b18-
a61ab45a1bfd}, http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={85f270df-f903-
411e-9b18-a61ab45a1bfd}. This All metal roof sign structure sign appears to have been rehabilitated in 2007
attached sign permit, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocId={d69c3779-1f65-4732-962f-
41ff75bc3648}

Author Historic Sign Category: 3

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

Macintosh Studio Clothing, 6522 Hollywood Boulevard, rear façade, c1930s painted wall sign (ghost sign),
Hollywood Boulevard, rear façade, photo by author, April 26, 2014. No permit on file for painted sign. Requires
additional research to verify authors estimated date based on city directory listing information during this time
period.

Author Historic Sign Category: 5

Newberry School of Beauty, 6522 Hollywood Boulevard, Rear façade, 1964 Wall Mounted Neon Sign, now
installed on the rear façade is a neon wall sign with the permit below. The permit has the incorrect name stating
that it was the Newberry School of Music, but this could have been a clerical error. In addition, it is not clear if
they installed it originally on the front or rear façade. Additional research is needed to verify authors findings.
This neon sign was identified as a contributor to the 1997 Historic Hollywood Neon Sign District.
Compare photo to permit sketch submitted to Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, City Permit LA
18930/18931, accessed, May 7, 2016,
http://ladbsdoc.lacity.org/IDISPublic_Records/idis/ImageMain.aspx?DocIds={6430454a-817e-47d6-93b5-
b88f238a95c2}.
.

Author Historic Sign Category: 4, 5

166

167

168

Appendix F: Hollywood Sign Use District Ordinance, 2010
189

189
City of Los Angeles, LA City Clerk Connect, Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District (SUD), accessed
June 16, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-2858-s1_ord_181340.pdf.
169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

Appendix G: Historic Hollywood Neon Sign District
190

190
CF – 97-2081, City archive file emailed at attachment from Michael Holland, City Archivist to author on March
9, 2016.
189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

Appendix H: Sign Type Definitions Summary
As an illustration of the types of definition differences and reference tracking to
determine Historic review status and identification the author has compiled the following two
ordinances, the Hollywood SUD and the Broadway SUD that have various different sign type
definitions. In addition, there is a column for the 1991 NPS Preservation Brief No. 25. There are
types without definitions in these columns as they apply to the expanded version of this
document that includes additional ordinances such as the Tucson, Arizona HLS Program for
comparison. The completion of this summary goes beyond the scope of this thesis and is
suggested that the author complete this at a later date.
232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

Appendix I: City Planning Commission Recommendation Report
191

191
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Case Reports, planning recommendation report, accessed
June 16, 2016, http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MjAzOTQ50.
261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

Appendix J: CD13, Proposed HCMs Digital Display Signs, Rooftop and Façade
192

192
City Clerk Connect, CF-11-1705, accessed June 16, 2016, http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-
1705_misc_b_4-19-16.pdf.
270

271

272

Appendix K: CD13 Proposed Eligible HCMs Digital Rooftop and Façade Signs
193

Below is a list compiled by the author of twenty-one eligible buildings using the
proposed CD 13 language to amend the existing Hollywood SUD list of eligible buildings to
install digital displays on the Historic Building façades or rooftops.
HCM SN Resource name Resource address
1 134 HSUD Crossroads of the World 6671 Sunset Boulevard
2 193 HSUD Pantages Theater 6233 Hollywood Boulevard
(6225-6249 Hollywood
Boulevard.)
3 495 HSUD El Capitan 6834 Hollywood Boulevard
(6834-6836 Hollywood
Boulevard.)
4 545 HSUD Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel 7000 Hollywood Boulevard
(7000-7014 Hollywood
Boulevard.)
5 572 HSUD Pacific Theater - Warner 6423 Hollywood Boulevard
(6423-6445 Hollywood
Boulevard.)
6 593 HSUD Max Factor 6280-6290 Hollywood Boulevard)
(1666 Highland Ave.)
7 664 HSUD The Broadway 6300-6316 Hollywood Boulevard
(1645 Vine Street)
8 665 HSUD Plaza Hotel & Neon Sign 1633 Vine Street.
9 666 HSUD Taft Bldg. & Neon Sign 6280-6290 Hollywood Boulevard
(1648-1680 Vine Street.)

10 857 HSUD Capitol Records and Rooftop
Sign
1740-1750 N. Vine Street
11 1088 HSUD Bank of Hollywood /Equitable
Bldg.
6253 Hollywood Boulevard
12 545 HSUD Roosevelt Hotel 7000-7034 Hollywood Boulevard
13 867 HSUD Mayfair Apartments 1760 N. Wilcox Ave
14 55 HSUD Grauman’s Chinese Theater 6915-6927 Hollywood Boulevard
15 277 HSUD Hollywood Masonic Temple 6840 Hollywood Boulevard
16 334 HSUD Security Trust and Savings
Building
1708 Cahuenga Boulevard
17 453 HSUD Artisans Patio Complex 6727-6733 Hollywood Boulevard

193
Author utilized HCM list published by the Office of Historic Resources, List of Historic-Cultural Monuments
Updated Winter 2016, to identify HCMs within HSUD boundaries, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/HCMDatabase%23021916.pdf.
273

18 495 HSUD El Capitan Theater Building 6834-6838 Hollywood Boulevard
19 584 HSUD Egyptian Theater and
Storefronts
6706-6712 Hollywood Boulevard
20 659 HSUD Pacifics Cinerama Dome and
Neon Sign
6360 Sunset Boulevard
21 876 HSUD Hollywood Professional
Building
7046 Hollywood Boulevard

274

Appendix L: Un-adopted CRA Streetscape Design Plans
194

194
CRA/LA Hollywood Boulevard District and Franklin Avenue Design District, Un-adopted Draft Urban Design
Standards and Guidelines, emailed from Kevin Keller, Director of Planning and Housing Policy, Office of Mayor
Eric Garcetti, to author on March 25, 2014.
275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

Appendix M: Office of Historic Resources Summary of Changes
195

195
City of Los Angeles, Office of Historic Resources website, Summary of Cultural Heritage Ordinance
Amendments, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20of%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Ordinances%20Amen
dments.pdf.
335

Appendix N: Broadway Hollywood Sign Determination Letter and Renderings
196

196
City of Los Angeles, Department of Planning, Case Report, accessed June 16, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MTU0NjYz0 and
http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MTgzMTEz0.
336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

Appendix O: Hollywood BID Allowed Sign Types Flyer
197

197
Hollywood Entertainment BID website, Documents and Reports, “Hollywood Sign Regulations,” accessed June
16, 2016, http://onlyinhollywood.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/HollywoodSignageETB.pdf.
347

348

Appendix P: Tucson Arizona Historic Landmark Sign Program Documents
198

198
City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services, Historic Landmark Sign (HLS) Preservation Program,
accessed, October 5, 2015, https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/historic-landmark-signs-hls-preservation-program.
349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

Appendix Q: Burbank Historic Sign Program Documents
Excerpt from the City of Burbank, Tuesday, May 24 meeting, agenda item P.4.:
P. Consent Calendar: (Items on the Consent Calendar are generally routine matters and
should be adopted by one motion without an oral report)
4. Historic Sign Ordinance, Project No. 14-0003761, Zone Text Amendment - Second
Reading - Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 10, ARTICLE 2, TITLE 10, ARTICLE 9, AND
TITLE 10, ARTICLE 18 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
HISTORIC SIGNS (PROJECT NO. 14-0003761, ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT).
MOTION 4-1 with Council Member Gordon voting No.
199

The Staff Report, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Publication Notice are
included in this appendix below.

199
City of Burbank, City Council Meeting, Agenda Documents, Public Hearing, Consent Items listed under section
P-4, Historic Sign Ordinance, Project No. 14-0003761, Zone Text Amendment - Community Development
Department, May 24, 2016, accessed June 17, 2016,
http://burbank.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7353.
365

Staff Report
366

367

368

369

370

Exhibit A
371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

Exhibit B
386

387

Exhibit C
388

389

Exhibit D
390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

Public Notice

429

430

Appendix R: Supergraphic and Off-Site Sign Litigation Summary
200

200
City Clerk Connect, Council File, CF 08-3386, December 12, 2008, accessed May 5, 2016,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-3386_mot_12-12-08.pdf.
431

Appendix S: Vogue Theater Marquee Digital Conversion Documents
201

201
Los Angeles City Planning website, plans accessed, May 14, 2016,
http://planning.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/CaseId/MjAyMzc20.
432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

Appendix T: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.42.180 Heritage Signs
202

A. Designation of Heritage Signs. The designation of a sign as a heritage sign is intended to allow
nonconforming signs that otherwise would be required to be removed in compliance with Section
20.42.140 (Nonconforming Signs) of this chapter to remain if the sign or the establishment
associated with the sign are determined to have historical or local identity significance to the City of
Newport Beach in compliance with the standards established in this section.
B. Application and Review Authority. Application for heritage sign status may be submitted by the
business owner, property owner, or City for review by the Commission. The Commission shall review all
applications and approve or disapprove heritage sign status in compliance with this section.
C. Heritage Sign Criteria. The Commission may designate a sign as a heritage sign if the sign is the type
of sign that would be subject to removal as a nonconforming sign and the sign meets both the following
criteria:
1. Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or created at least
thirty-five (35) years ago and is either representative of a significant sign-making technique or style of a
historic era or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of Newport Beach history.
2. Visually Significant. The sign is visually significant in at least two of the following regards:
a. The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has aged gracefully;
b. The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the period when it was constructed and
uses materials in an exemplary way;
c. The sign complements its architectural surroundings or is particularly well integrated into the structure;
or
d. The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name, or logo of the building or business.
D. Designation of Heritage Signs.
1. The Director shall review each application for heritage sign status on a case-by-case basis to assess
whether the sign meets the criteria for designation as a heritage sign. Based on this review, staff shall
prepare findings and recommendations to the Commission regarding their assessment and the
application’s merit regarding the designation. The Commission shall review staff findings and
recommendations at a noticed public hearing.
2. The Commission may direct staff to undertake additional analysis to assess whether a sign should
receive heritage sign status. The Commission may also direct staff to undertake additional analysis of any
sign already designated as a heritage sign. Staff’s additional analyses and recommendations shall be
available for public review and comment prior to the Commission’s subsequent meeting for review and
action on a heritage sign.
3. Upon due consideration of staff’s findings and recommendations plus all public testimony and
comment, the Commission may approve or deny designation of heritage sign status.
E. Alteration of Heritage Signs. Designated heritage signs may not be physically altered except for
routine cleaning and general maintenance. Cleaning and maintenance shall be consistent with the
preservation of the character or defining features of the sign in all respects. A designated heritage sign
may be removed if desired. If a designated heritage sign is removed, its heritage status shall be
revoked. If the character or defining features of a designated heritage sign are altered, its
designation as a heritage sign shall be revoked and the sign shall be removed. Where applicable, the
sign may be modified to conform to the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A) (part),
2010)

202
Bolded sections by author to highlight excerpts quoted in thesis text. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
website, accessed May 16, 2016,
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/frameless/index.pl?path=../html/NewportBeach20/NewportBea
ch2042.html#20.42.180

Asset Metadata

Creator Schwartz, Lannette Marie (author)

Core Title Conserving historic commercial signs in Hollywood, California

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 07/07/2016

Defense Date 06/28/2016

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

Tag Broadway Hollywood,building permits for historic signs,Burbank Historic Sign program,CEQA and historic sign compliance review,citywide sign ordinance,digital displays on historic buildings,digital displays on historic-cultural monuments,El Capitan sign,financial incentives for historic sign conservation or preservation,Frolic Room neon wall sign,ghost signs,Halifax Hotel sign,historic commercial signs,historic Hollywood neon district,historic sign adaptive reuse,historic sign area bonus,historic sign CEQA,historic sign compliance reviews,historic sign conservation incentives,historic sign contributors,historic sign definitions,historic sign demolition stay,historic sign materials,historic sign relocation,historic sign salvage,historic sign surveys,historic sign treatment plan,historic sign types,historic sign voluntary program,historic signs and reversibility,Hollywood,Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment Historic District,Hollywood Community Plan Area,Hollywood Community Redevelopment Area,Hollywood Entertainment District Business Improvement District,Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District,Hollywood Tower sign,Knickerbocker Hotel neon rooftop sign,Kress neon letter sign,legal considerations of free speech or commercial speech for historic signs,Lido neon sign,Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments,Macintosh Studio Clothing ghost sign,Mark Twain Hotel rooftop neon sign,Miceli's pizzeria restaurant blade sign,Montecito sign,municipal sign codes,mural ordinance,Musso,National Park Service Preservation Brief No. 25,Newberry School of Beauty neon sign,non-conforming signs,OAI-PMH Harvest,ordinance codification,Pacific Warner Theater radio towers,Pantages Theater marquee,public art installations,public policy loopholes,re:codeLA,recommendations for historic sign conservation,recommendations for historic sign preservation,Roosevelt Hotel and Cinegrill signs,sign parcels,stand-alone historic sign program,Sunset and Vine Business Improvement District,supergraphics,Supply Sergeant rooftop neon sign,Taft Building sign,Trianon sign,Tucson Historic Landmark Sign (HLS) program,Vogue Theater marquee digital display conversion

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Drake Reitan, Meredith (committee member), Horak, Katie (committee member)

Creator Email lannette@earthlink.net,lpabon@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-263462

Unique identifier UC11280488

Identifier etd-SchwartzLa-4519.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-263462 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SchwartzLa-4519.pdf

Dmrecord 263462

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Schwartz, Lannette Marie

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This thesis explores how public policy impacts historic commercial sign conservation practices in Hollywood, a City of Los Angeles commercial regional center. The findings conclude that there are significant loopholes that jeopardize historic commercial sign resources. The recommendation is for the City of Los Angeles to adopt a new historic sign program, modeled from the Tucson, Arizona Historic Landmark Sign program, as a best practice to conserve historic commercial signs. historic commercial signs. ❧ Like in other cities, the demolition threat of a particular sign, or character defining features of a sign, brings this issue to light. In this case, the Vogue Theater Marquee digital conversion in 2015 prompted an intensive review of existing policies. The premise of this thesis was to ferret out the loopholes, and outdated policy language, that thwart historic sign conservation efforts in Hollywood. The findings resulted in a recommendation to adopt a new historic sign program that is separate from the historic building designation. This is essentially a stand-alone program which differs from the existing sign conservation practices in Hollywood. ❧ This stand-alone program is like other ordinances in that it will require a municipal zoning amendment, but it will also incorporate different elements that in total will offer a separate and distinct historic designation process for commercial signs administered through the Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources (OHR). The program elements include a separate commercial sign survey, a sign designation application, a sign registry, a sign treatment plan, and a financial incentives plan for conserving