HCM-124 — designated 1974-04-03
Tierman House
2323 Micheltorena Street
active mills act contract on a property in a low or low-to-medium barriers equity tier — city is paying, but owner is in a high-resource neighborhood and would likely have maintained the property without the subsidy
Mills Act subsidy is going to a property in a low or low-to-medium barriers tier — the city is paying, but the owner is in a high-resource neighborhood and likely would have maintained the property regardless
street view ↗ satellite ↗ big orange landmarks ↗ (bariscale, 2008) stucco (orchestrator-captured imagery is not building-aimed — use these for HITL verification)
Six-axis scores
- A. would-survive 5 probability the structure would survive market forces without HCM designation. low = needs protection.
- B. tourist currency 0 tourist and cultural currency — Wikipedia pageviews, walking-tour inclusion, public visitation evidence.
- C. subsidy efficiency 3 subsidy efficiency — Mills Act and federal HTC value vs preservation outcome. zero means no active subsidy.
- D. externality load 0 externality load — code complaints, CSR cases, 311 encampment/dumping/graffiti, vacancy duration.
- E. neighborhood health 8 neighborhood health — median household income, distress indicators, displacement risk.
- F. alternative-use value 0 alternative-use value — parcel acres, TOC tier, TPA eligibility, zoning capacity for higher use.
overall confidence: unknown
Site
- lat / lon
- 34.10251, -118.26905
- parcel acres
- 0.12078169557882182 (inferred)
- typology
- sfr
- TPA / TOC
- no
- zoning capacity
- —
- nrhp listed
- no
- architect prominence
- —
Condition + subsidy
all "condition" fields below are proxies derived from LADBS permit history, 311 CSR cases, and code complaints. none of these directly measures occupancy. the vacancy line shows the proxy value and the specific rule that produced it; readers should treat "active" as "construction permits filed recently," not "people live or work here."
- vacancy proxy
- active
- vacancy proxy basis
- recent investment over 250k in 60mo
- last permit
- 2022
- permits last 24mo
- 0
- code complaints 24mo
- 0
- CSR open cases
- 0
- Mills Act contract
- yes — see contract details below
- federal HTC
- no
- Wikipedia pageviews 12mo
- —
- walking-tour inclusion
- no
- median hhi (tract)
- $162,066
- assessed value
- —
Street view vision classification
claude vision analyzed 4 Google street view captures (n/e/s/w from the parcel coordinates) for visible distress indicators. this is an automated screening — false positives and negatives both happen, and "well_maintained" only means the visible facade is intact; internal structural condition is not assessable from street view.
- building visible
- partial
- building type
- sfr
- overall condition
- well maintained
- other indicators
- none visible
- notes
- A mid-century modern single-family residence is partially visible at heading 270°, appearing well-maintained with tidy landscaping and no distress indicators observed.
Contextual signals (GIS)
these are contextual proxies — signals derived from spatial context, not direct measurements of the property. they help infer hidden variables (contamination probability, structural risk) that public open-data does not measure directly. source: cal OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (cumulative pollution burden by census tract).
- census tract
- 6037195100
- CalEnviroScreen overall percentile
- 31.2 (decile 4)
- cleanups percentile
- 91.2
- groundwater threats percentile
- 0.0
- hazardous waste percentile
- 91.9
- toxic release percentile
- 73.4
- lead exposure percentile
- 53.8
- EnviroStor cleanup sites nearby
- —
- in CGS liquefaction zone
- no
- type-1 contamination probability (fused)
- 0.26 — low
- type-2 structural-risk probability
- 0.20 — low
Mills Act contract
data from city of la Mills Act program assessment, appendix a — 2019 list of Mills Act properties (chattel/AECOM, 2022). matched to this HCM by HCM number.
- ma contract number
- C-106058
- ma contract year
- 2003
- property use type
- Single-family
- 2019 owner savings (annual)
- $3,736
- 2019 la city revenue loss (annual)
- $406
- percentage of savings
- 51.2% (high)
- AECOM equity index score
- 7.88
- AECOM equity category
- low barriers
- designation type
- hcm
Narrative
history
the tierman house (hcm-124) is a single-family residence designated as a historic-cultural monument by the city of los angeles. precise construction date, original architect, and initial occupant records were not recoverable in the data pull underlying this analysis; all build-date and provenance claims in secondary literature should be treated as unverified pending archival research at the los angeles city clerk's hcm file or the county assessor's historical parcel records. the designation itself establishes the structure's recognized significance within the city's cultural heritage inventory, though the basis for that designation — whether architectural merit, historic occupancy, or neighborhood landmark status — could not be independently confirmed from the fetched dataset. no major recorded events (fires, seismic damage, notable alterations) appear in the available code-complaint or 311 history, though data completeness for this parcel is low.
architectural significance
architectural style, notable exterior features, and comparable extant examples in los angeles cannot be characterized with confidence given the absence of typology-specific descriptive data in the fetched record. the structure is classified as a single-family residence (sfr), which places it in a broad category that includes craftsman bungalows, period revival cottages, mid-century modern houses, and post-war tract variants — all of which are represented among the city's hcm inventory. without architect attribution, nrhp listing documentation, or a field survey report, no defensible stylistic comparison to surviving los angeles examples can be made here. this gap is a primary driver of the reassess flag and should be addressed through direct inspection and review of the original designation file.
neighborhood context
the tierman house sits in a census tract with a median household income of $162,066 — placing it well above the citywide median and indicating an affluent, low-distress surrounding neighborhood. the five-year population change of -37 persons is a marginal contraction that likely reflects household-size shifts or modest out-migration rather than structural decline; it does not signal neighborhood destabilization. the 311 load within 500 feet over the past 24 months shows zero encampment, dumping, or graffiti incidents, consistent with a well-maintained residential submarket. no transit-priority area (tpa) or transit-oriented community (toc) tier designation is recorded, suggesting the parcel is not proximate to high-frequency transit infrastructure. taken together, the neighborhood profile is one of established, high-income residential stability with negligible externality pressure. | metric | value | |---|---| | census tract | 06037195100 | | median hhi | 162066 | | 5yr δ population | -37 | | 311 within 500ft (24mo) | 0 | | encampment 311 calls | 0 | | ladbs code complaints (24mo) | — | | last permit year | — |
subsidy and condition
| field | value | |---|---| | mills act | — | | federal htc | — | | vacancy status | — |
classification reasoning
axis a (survival without protection) scores 5 at medium confidence, reflecting genuine ambiguity: in a high-income submarket with affluent owners and presumably strong property values, a well-maintained sfr may face less demolition pressure than comparable structures in transitional neighborhoods, but the absence of architect prominence, nrhp listing, adaptive-reuse demand data, and recent owner investment records prevents a confident assessment in either direction. a score of 5 is the honest midpoint given data scarcity, not an endorsement of vulnerability. axis b (tourist/cultural currency) scores 0, but confidence is flagged unknown — there are no google reviews, wikipedia pageviews, walking-tour inclusions, or nps designation on record. this could mean genuine obscurity or a data retrieval failure; the score cannot be relied upon to rule out cultural significance. axes c and d both score 0. for c (subsidy efficiency), no mills act contract, federal historic tax credit, or vacancy data exists, making the axis unscored rather than clean — a zero here means no information, not no subsidy drain. for d (externality load), 311 data shows zero incidents at medium confidence, which is a genuine, reliable signal: the property is not generating measurable negative spillover onto its surroundings. axis e (neighborhood health) scores 8 at high confidence, driven by the $162,066 median hhi and minimal population loss. this is the dataset's most reliable signal and clearly disqualifies the candidate flag on the e_max ≤ 5 condition. axis f (alternative use value) scores 0 at unknown confidence due to missing parcel acreage, zoning capacity, and toc tier — meaning redevelopment upside cannot be estimated, not that it is absent. the overall confidence is rated unknown because three of six axes lack actionable data. the reassess flag is appropriate and correctly applied. the parcel fails the candidate conditions on multiple axes (e = 8 exceeds the e_max of 5; f = 0 is below the f_min of 6; c and d do not meet their thresholds; overall confidence is unknown). it also lacks the high a or high b scores that would justify do_not_touch. maintain is premature without verified architectural significance data. reassess correctly routes this hcm to field validation and archival review before any policy action.
sources
- la311: https://data.lacity.org/resource/h65r-yf5i.json?$where=within_circle(location%2c%2034.1025084260564%2c%20-118.26905359647157%2c%20152)%20and%20createddate%20%3e%20'2024-05-10'&$limit=1000 --- _generated by hcm-1200 orchestrator on 2026-05-10t22:54:02.565z._