THE MELLENTHIN BIRDHOUSE APTS
Designated Historic Resource and Completed Project Application Calling for Demolition; What Will City Planning Do Next?
Over in Valley Glen, out in the Van Nuys section of the San Fernando Valley, an interesting scenario is playing out. A developer is proposing to tear down a six-unit courtyard apartment complex and replace it with 104 units of affordable housing. The Los Angeles Department of City Planning has determined that the project application is complete, so the applicant expects the already filed demolition permit to soon be approved in accordance with State housing law.
But, at the same time, a determined group of tenants and preservationists were able to push a Historic Cultural Monument (HCM) nomination through the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). The HCM nomination stayed the demolition permit and the CHC approved the nomination prior to the completion of the project application. As of now, everyone is looking at City Planning as to how they plan to resolve the pending conflict.
The courtyard complex in question are the William Mellenthin birdhouse apartments located at 5922-5930 N Buffalo Avenue. Mellenthin designed over 3,000 single family homes across Los Angeles, but only a handful of multi-family homes. A few of these multi-family homes have been identified, and except for this one in Van Nuys, all have been demolished.
Described in an online article by the Los Angeles Conservancy, the Birdhouse Apartments are discribed as1:
"Whimsical yet modest, each apartment is a miniature version of Mellenthin’s full-size single-family ‘Birdhouses.’ Mellenthin and architect Frank S. Hinksman designed the Birdhouse typology in the late 1930s, inspired by Mellenthin’s childhood in Minnesota. The wooden birdhouse adorned the gables of Ranch style homes. The style became so popular that other designers began incorporating them into their developments."
At the heart of this matter is the timeline of events and the determination of when an HCM nomination is officially adopted. I have reviewed the available online records and present a list of major dates and actions as follows:
Aug 22, 2024 - Project applicant files ePlan with LADBS for demolition
Sept 24, 2024 - OHR deems the HCM application complete; LADBS is notified to place demolition on hold
Oct 17, 2024 - CHC hearing to review HCM Nomination
Nov 1, 2024 - Project applicant files project application with City Planning
Dec 12, 2024 - CHC committee issues determination letter in support of HCM
Feb 6, 2025 - CHC holds hearing, the HCM nomination is approved
Mar 5, 2025 - City Planning deems the project application complete
Mar 16, 2025 - City Planning approves the project plans
Apr 8, 2025 - PLUM Committee approves HCM designation
Apr 30, 2025 - City Council approves HCM designation
As of today (May 20, 2025), the demolition permit is still on hold. The project applicant is calling for the restart of their project in accordance with the State housing law. The applicable section is found in Section 65913.10 (a):
“For purposes of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation that requires the city or county to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site, the city or county shall make that determination at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete.”
The project application was deemed complete by City Planning on March 5th. City Council approved the HCM nomination on April 30th. Since the project application was approved prior to the approval of the HCM designation, the historic status of the building should not impact the proposed project. But . . .
The project applicants position assumes that the historic designation is contingent upon City Council approval. This is where we have to dig into the weeds and look beyond subsection (a). Section 65913.10 (c)(1) states:
“Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.”
Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As stated in subsection (c)(1), the Housing Act cannot negate or override CEQA. In addition, CEQA has a section specifically related to the special review of housing projects.
A housing project that meets all of the listed criteria qualifies for an exemption from this division. One such criteria is specified in Section 21599.21 (g) “The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1.” Obviously, the demolition of a historic resource is a significant impact. Thus, the proposed project does not comply with the exemption criteria.
Now, we also need to look at Section 21084.1 which addresses the definition of a historic resource. For California, inclusion in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources qualifies the resource as historic. In addition, the section goes on to state:
“The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.”
Notice, Section 21084.1 does not use the term “city or county” as referenced in the State housing law. CEQA specifically states “lead agency.” The Cultural Heritage Commission, operating under the Planning Department, is the official lead agency for the determination of historic resources.
The CHC, as lead agency, designated the apartment complex to be an historic resource on Feb 6th, one month prior to City Planning ruling the project application complete. Since City Council is not the lead agency under CEQA, their approval on April 30th is just a formality for registering the historic resource on the city list.
Officially, City Planning has taken a limited position as to the processing of a project application under the housing act versus the determination of historic designation under CEQA. On page 15 of their inter-departmental guidance document to LADBS, it is stated2:
“City Planning regularly receives nominations for Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) designation, some of which affect a property that may have a future Housing Development Project proposal. If the HCM nomination is received prior to any Housing Development Project application being deemed complete or a building permit Plan Check application to LADBS is submitted for a project that does not require a City Planning application, City Planning will continue processing the HCM nomination. However, once a City Planning application is deemed complete or a building permit Plan Check application is submitted to LADBS for a project that does not require a City Planning application, a later HCM designation cannot be applied to the project site for as long as the application and permits for a Housing Development Project remain active and valid, unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities."
Notice that City Planning guidance does not specify what happens when the HCM designation occurs prior to completion of the project application. Their guidance only addresses a scenario where the designation occurs after the project application is found to be complete.
Clearly, City Planning guidance is to stop processing the HCM nomination once the project application is deemed complete. But, in the current case, we have the HCM nomination approved by the CHC prior to the completion of the project application and City Council approval of the HCM occurring after. Can we use the actions taken by City Planning to infer which entity determines the nomination?
Assume that the processing of the HCM nomination is not complete until approved by City Council. If this statement is correct, then the HCM nomination should not have gone on to PLUM or the City Council since the completion of the project application predates these events. City Planning would not be following their own guidance.
Assume City Planning processing of the HCM nomination ended with the CHC approval vote taken on Feb 6th, one month prior to City Planning ruling the application complete. The presentations made to PLUM and City Council must not represent an ongoing "processing" of the nomination since all processing should have ended when the project application was deemed complete.
It will be interesting to see the pathway forward taken by City Planning. Will they default to the Housing Act and claim that their hands are tied? Will they use their authority as lead agency to require the project applicant to assess the impact of their project on the historic resource? One pathway leads to the public being silenced and the definite destruction of the resource. The other pathway leads to continued public involvement and a chance to consider project alternatives such as adaptive reuse.
Subscriber Chris L kindly provided me some clarifications regarding the information presented by the Los Angeles Conservancy. William Mellenthan was not a licensed architect, he was a builder/contractor. Frank S Hickman was employed by Mellenthan as a draftsman. In verifying this info, I came across an interesting book entitled “A Birdhouse in Paradise,” written by Chris Lukather. The book includes info about Mike Mellenthin, William’s son, a home builder like his father.
I take exception with this guidance as it relates to a "later HCM designation." City Planning, as lead agency, may elect at any time to designate a resource as historic. They cannot do this on a whim, or without just cause, but a fundamental strength of CEQA is that prior decisions are subject to review if and when new information comes to light. City Planning, in cutting off the historic designation process once the project application is deemed complete, is following City policy, and not law. As stated elsewhere, the State housing act cannot supersede, limit, or otherwise modify CEQA and this is what City Planning is doing via their policy.
Just curious, what does "The project applicant is calling for the restart of their project" mean exactly?
Very good article. Thanks for sharing this important information. Two corrections: Frank S. Hickman is the correct spelling. He was not an architect. He worked for William Mellenthin as a draftsman and drew up Mellenthin's plans. There is no official architect as Mellenthin was not a licensed architect. There is one other existing multi-family dwelling by Mellenthin. It was built in 1941. It's on Laurel Canyon Blvd. just south of the 101 Freeway. Thank you.