Paramount council hears overview of options for a local historic‑preservation ordinance

A consultant for the city presented an educational overview Tuesday night of what a potential historic‑preservation ordinance for Paramount could look like, emphasizing that the session was informational rather than a formal request to adopt law.

"My name is Carrie Fowler. I am senior preservation planner with Historic Resources Group," Carrie Fowler told the council, and then outlined the common ordinance components: what properties could be designated, whether designation should be owner‑initiated or imposed, which body would make decisions, how project review would work, and what incentives could be offered to encourage rehabilitation.

Fowler said ordinances can range from highly prescriptive to permissive. She recommended using established criteria modeled on the National Register and California Register of Historical Resources rather than bespoke local tests because the standard criteria are well understood and legally defensible. She also explained the difference between ‘‘potentially eligible’’ properties identified in a survey, ‘‘eligible’’ properties that have had further evaluation, and ‘‘designated’’ properties that have gone through a local nomination process.

Councilmembers pressed for practical details. Several asked how many properties the city’s recent survey actually identified and whether the survey included photographs and DPR‑style field forms. Fowler said the survey includes an inventory and that appendices contain field photos and evaluation forms; staff agreed to provide the survey appendix and the presentation slides for council review.

The briefing flagged key policy choices that would determine how broadly the ordinance would affect property owners: whether owner consent would be required for local designation, the age threshold for eligibility (commonly 50 years), and whether project review (a certificate of appropriateness or similar) would apply only to formally designated resources or to the broader survey list.

Fowler also described commonly used incentives—Mills Act contracts, reduced permit fees, expedited review and parking waivers—typically reserved for owners who accept designation. She said project‑review systems normally classify alterations as negligible, minor or major so that routine changes (for example, interior work or non‑visible repairs) are not unduly burdensome, while major changes such as demolition would require higher‑level review.

Staff and the consultant recommended next steps that could include a comparative matrix of neighboring cities’ ordinances, drafting a discussion‑stage ordinance for council review, and community outreach workshops to gauge public interest.

The council did not take a vote on an ordinance. Instead, members asked staff to circulate the full survey inventory and the consultant’s slides and to return with a options table and a possible timeline for additional outreach before any draft ordinance is prepared.

The council’s next regular meeting is May 19, at which follow‑up materials are expected to be distributed.