“The stakes are higher, and preservation is more complicated than it used to be.”
Given the scale of destruction wrought by the Eaton & Palisades fires, TPR interviewed Adrian Scott Fine, President & CEO of the Los Angeles Conservancy, to discuss the organization’s role in documenting the historic assets lost in the fires and efforts to preserve cultural heritage as the region endeavors to rebuild. Fine highlights the Conservancy’s recent award from the Getty Foundation to lead a community-driven historic resources survey and Cultural Asset Mapping project in Altadena and makes the case for thoughtful recovery planning to ensure the community’s historic character isn’t erased in the name of expedience. Arguing that housing production and preservation are not diametrically opposed, Fine opines on pending state legislation that would further erode local control over land-use decision-making.
Adrian, remind our readers of the mission of the LA Conservancy and its present role in historic preservation, especially after the Palisades and Altadena fires.
The Conservancy is all about education and advocacy across Los Angeles County and responding to issues as they arise. We use both proactive and reactive strategies. The wildfires have required a combination of both. In many ways, this is an unprecedented event—we’ve never really seen anything like it, which pushes us to think about heritage in new ways and develop new tools.
A guiding post for the Conservancy has always been that the work we do must be relevant. We can’t think of anything more relevant right now than responding to a crisis that has impacted both the City and County of Los Angeles so profoundly.
Elaborate on the extent of the loss of historic assets in the fires.
Innumerable—incalculable, really. Some of the major sites impacted include Will Rogers Ranch, the Zane Grey Estate, and the Rand McNally House in Altadena—places of major stature that everyone knows. But it’s also legacy businesses, the Park Planned Community in Altadena, modernist homes from the ’70s and ’80s, and very early heritage architecture. Especially in the Palisades and Altadena, the range of loss is vast and deeply felt.
How has the Conservancy responded and how have offers of support been received?
Initially, we thought we’d be bringing in structural engineers and architects to assess damaged buildings, but very quickly we realized that wasn’t going to be the case. In most instances, there were no structures left. Our immediate focus shifted to documentation, understanding, and recording what was lost to support local healing and recovery.
We began with anecdotal confirmations, place by place. Then, thanks to funding from the World Monuments Fund, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and support from consultants like Architectural Resources Group, we conducted GIS mapping of the entire burn zones in both the Palisades and Eaton Canyon. We created and produced public dynamic maps by early March. It was pretty fast, all things considered.
From there, the Getty Foundation awarded us new funding in mid-June, which lets us move into the next phase. We’re focusing much of our work now in Altadena. We’ll be conducting a community-wide historic resources survey, not just in the burn areas, and developing a historic context statement. We’re also undertaking a cultural asset mapping project, which is very community-driven and emerging as an important way to define heritage beyond just structures.
As part of that, we’ve partnered with LA County Arts & Culture and the national Artists at Work program. An artist from Altadena who lost her home in the fire is working with us to explore, through her practice, what community, heritage, and commemoration look like as we rebuild. All of these efforts will continue over the next 18 months.
That’s why it’s taken us some time to figure it out. But having Getty’s support is important. Having more people step up, especially elected officials, like the County Supervisors, will be critical too.
Adrian, as you well know, currently there’s intense public and political pressure is to “build back” fast, often by eliminating regulations. What lessons from other like disasters merit sharing with LA authorities?
We’re cognizant of the desire to build back quickly, and we understand that. I think there are some caveats and lessons learned from other places, like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans—we’ve talked with some of our colleagues there and in other places responding to natural disasters.
The desire to build back quickly can come at a cost, in terms of displacement and new structures that may not reflect quality construction and resilience long-term.
Elaborate.
In some cases, they built back where it didn’t fit the character or built back too quickly and the materials began failing. Now they’re having to rebuild some of those buildings.
They also struggled with, and I think we’re going to struggle with as well, this issue of displacement: the ability or inability of people who were there before the fire to come back. It’s talking about things like: how do you do land banking? How do you move buildings to accommodate people to get rehoused as quickly as possible, but in a way that honors what makes a place like Altadena so special?
If you don’t know these answers from the start, you’re kind of behind the eight ball. That’s part of the idea of doing the planning that we’re talking about. We’re working with LA County Regional Planning as part of this, to embed that as much as possible, knowing that this is a fast moving train.
We understand some efforts will be made to house and rebuild as quickly as possible, so we’re also working with groups like The Foothill Catalog Foundation and others who are trying to streamline to save costs for homeowners.
We hope the community can build back in a way where new houses are, again, building on what was the essential character of Altadena—what was there before, and what might come back in the future. Having said all this, it’s going to be a struggle, and it’s going to be a race. Many of the lots are selling to speculative developers and LLCs, so it’s going to be a bit of a mix. If we don’t do anything, we know we’re not going to succeed.
One of the strengths of Southern California has been local governments’ control of planning, but that’s been usurped of late by the State. Now, developers are permitted increasingly to build what one wants, where & how one wants. How does “anything goes” City Planning impact the Conservancy’s historic preservation agenda?
Yeah, it’s definitely a different arena and climate that we’re operating in now. In the Conservancy’s case, working primarily in Altadena, I’d say the County provides a bit more flexibility and oversight compared to the City of Los Angeles, which makes some aspects easier. That said, the Palisades will likely see a very different outcome from what we expect in Altadena.
But overall, it’s more challenging today because there’s far less local control to guide and shape development. Even fundamental tools, like establishing design guidelines for new construction, are increasingly restricted due to recent state legislation. That shift has made thoughtful, community-based planning much harder to achieve.
Who, Adrian, are the stewards of the built environment in Southern California?
I think it’s the people who live in these communities. It’s ensuring their voices are heard. Increasingly, that’s not always the case in terms of how planning is happening with limited public participation.
That’s why some of the work that we’re doing, especially around cultural asset mapping, is relying upon and driven by the community exercising their voice and saying what they care about—what’s important in that community—and for us to be able to take that information and, to the greatest extent possible, embed that into the planning process going forward.
Who currently are some the Conservancy’s political champions—locally, regionally, in the State?
That depends on which jurisdiction and issue you’re talking about. Some government officials support a specific effort or issue we’re working on, but not another. Housing is often pitted as either preservation or production, especially when it comes up against a historic neighborhood or losing a historic building.
We’re always saying it doesn’t need to be like that. It’s a false choice or equivalence. Preservation and production are a “both” “and.” That is increasingly what we’re trying to press for. We can do all of this fire resiliency and building back quickly in a way that doesn’t mean losing what this community looks like and its character, including the people who lived there.
For context, many of our readers know that the Mills Act was for years a significant incentive for owners of historic buildings, especially single-family homes, to maintain and restore their properties/buildings. LA’s adoption of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone ordinance in 1979 also encouraged the preservation of neighborhood architecture and cultural legacy. The Downtown Adaptive Reuse Ordinance of 1999 had an incredible impact.
What today are the most significant current laws or ordinances protecting LA’s historic assets?
That’s a great question! One part of the answer is retooling those older programs, like the Mills Act or the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, because they don’t function today quite like they did when they were first created. For instance, the city recently updated the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, expanded it citywide, and are making it more friendly toward housing. That’s a good example of how to evolve these tools.
We’ve also been supporting legislation like Senator Matt Haney’s bill (AB 507) focused on converting vacant office buildings into housing. It’s an example of blending housing production with preservation tools. Streamlining is key here, because being expedient doesn’t have to mean stripping away important protections. We need to design smart pathways that allow adaptive reuse while keeping preservation safeguards in place, and we need more of these approaches at both the local and state levels.
Talk a bit about the city’s Civic Center Master Plan and the potential demolition of the Kenneth Hahn administration building. How is the Conservancy engaging in that conversation, and what’s at stake?
First off, it’s a wrong-headed idea. The Kenneth Hahn building and others like the adjacent courthouse are integral to the composition and urban design of the Civic Center. They’re the bookend structures that anchor the entire Civic Center. To tear one or both down without seriously evaluating adaptive reuse options is short-sighted. Sure, they’ve been neglected and need seismic work, but those are solvable challenges.
We should be looking at how to adapt these buildings for new uses that align with a forward-looking Civic Center. What’s needed is a real, collaborative planning process: one that brings the City and County leadership together to ask, “What do we want the Civic Center to be for the next 10 or 50 years?”
That conversation hasn’t truly happened yet.
Adrian, let’s now pivot to something more immediate. Will exempting infill housing from CEQA or blanket upzoning, as the legislature is considering with AB 609 or SB 79, impact the Conservancy’s preservation efforts?
Absolutely, and in more ways than people realize. Take single-family neighborhoods, for example. With CEQA exemptions, you could see one- or two-story homes in the middle of a block replaced by six- or seven-story apartment buildings. That changes not just the building but the whole character of the neighborhood.
We worked hard during the Community Housing Incentive Program (CHIP) process to find middle ground—real “win-wins”—that increased housing while still respecting neighborhood context. But new state legislation like SB 79 threatens to unravel that kind of thoughtful planning. Cities are increasingly losing their ability to plan holistically, and that makes it much harder to protect places that matter to communities.
You now lead the LA Conservancy, which has been one of the largest in the country in terms of membership. Today, in 2025, with the Metro shocked by both the recent fires and the Covid pandemic; is the Conservancy still the largest? Has support waned or grown?
Our membership is pretty much the same; we’re around 4,500 members. Concerning our supporters, I don’t think they’ve changed dramatically. In many ways, people see the Conservancy as more necessary than ever before. The stakes are higher, and preservation is more complicated than it used to be. We’re trying to make sure the work we’re doing is relevant to what Angelenos care about.
We have a housing initiative and are also focused on wildfires, alongside education programs like our weekly walking tours and our Community Leadership Bootcamp Program. We’re also still doing the day-to-day efforts—advocacy, education, and ensuring that historic places and LA’s heritage stay front and center. Even now, given what’s happening around immigration, it speaks to what matters in LA, and that’s the people.
We always say: people + places. If we lose the people integral to LA’s story, that’s huge.
I hope more people, including elected officials, recognize what’s important, including our heritage and the work we do. Elections change things, and the City Council’s makeup today is very different from five years ago. Our work is more necessary than ever, but sometimes more difficult.
Adrian, is the Conservancy active on social networks? It seems that increasingly people now get most all their civic information from Instagram, not the LA Times.
Exactly. Yes, we’re very active on social media. We have about 56,000 followers on Instagram alone. Across all our platforms, we reach over 100,000 people. It’s a different world now, and relying on traditional media doesn’t work anymore.
Closing, if TPR interviews you again a year from now, what will we likely be addressing?
I think we’ll still be talking about housing. We’ll still be talking about local control versus the state. I’m hopeful that we’ll have some success stories about communities coming back together post-wildfires, and that the people who were there before are part of that, instead of seeing complete transformation of beloved places.
I think those will be some of the core issues, and with everything happening now, I can’t imagine we won’t also be talking about federal-level dynamics. Either on how cities and states like California can continue operating as they have or are being challenged and overruled.
- Log in to post comments
