HCM-693 — designated 2001-04-24
Israel House
914 Bluegrass lane
public open-data signals are too weak to classify; designation may be load-bearing via procedural friction, may be recognition only — rubric cannot tell without a demolition-pressure proxy
cannot classify — public open-data signals are too weak. would need a demolition-pressure proxy to resolve.
street view ↗ satellite ↗ (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 0 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 9 neighborhood health — median household income, distress indicators, displacement risk.
- F. alternative-use value 2 alternative-use value — parcel acres, TOC tier, TPA eligibility, zoning capacity for higher use.
overall confidence: unknown
Site
- lat / lon
- 34.07490, -118.48557
- parcel acres
- 0.510105925669003 (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
- single permit within 5y
- last permit
- 2023
- permits last 24mo
- 0
- code complaints 24mo
- 0
- CSR open cases
- 0
- Mills Act contract
- no — not in la OHR appendix a (2019 list of Mills Act properties)
- federal HTC
- no
- Wikipedia pageviews 12mo
- —
- walking-tour inclusion
- no
- median hhi (tract)
- $250,001
- 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
- distressed
- type-2 indicators (residential distress)
- vegetation overgrowth, structural sagging
- notes
- Partial view southward shows a low-slung structure with a deteriorating roof, debris/gravel piles, and heavy vegetation overgrowth consistent with neglect; the surrounding area shows active disturbance and construction materials scattered around the parcel.
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
- 6037262301
- CalEnviroScreen overall percentile
- 5.8 (decile 1)
- cleanups percentile
- 58.2
- groundwater threats percentile
- 22.1
- hazardous waste percentile
- 19.2
- toxic release percentile
- 67.7
- lead exposure percentile
- 23.5
- EnviroStor cleanup sites nearby
- —
- in CGS liquefaction zone
- no
- type-1 contamination probability (fused)
- 0.17 — low
- type-2 structural-risk probability
- 0.00 — low
Narrative
history
israel house (hcm-693) is a single-family residence designated as a historic-cultural monument by the city of los angeles. precise construction date and original architect are not recorded in the fetched data, and no supplemental nrhp listing or architect-of-record attribution is available to cross-reference; all date claims in public-facing sources should be treated as approximate pending primary documentation. the property takes its designation name 'israel house,' suggesting association with a historically notable occupant or family of that surname, though the nature of that significance — whether tied to a specific individual's civic role, period of occupation, or local community history — could not be confirmed from available records. no major documented events (fires, alterations, change-of-use proceedings) appear in the dataset, and no code complaints or vacancy events are on record for the 24-month window reviewed.
architectural significance
with architect prominence listed as null and no nrhp nomination narrative available in the fetched record, the architectural style of israel house cannot be classified with confidence. as a single-family residence designated under hcm criteria, it most likely represents one of the period-revival or vernacular residential traditions common to los angeles neighborhoods settled between the 1890s and 1950s — craftsman bungalow, spanish colonial revival, or period cottage among the most statistically probable — but this is inference, not documented fact. without parcel-level photography, building-permit history, or a detailed nomination form, meaningful comparison to comparable extant examples in the submarket is not possible. field verification of style, original materials, and integrity of historic fabric is a prerequisite for any substantive architectural assessment.
neighborhood context
the tract surrounding israel house is among the healthiest in the analytical dataset: median household income reaches the top-coded ceiling of $250,001, population grew by 227 persons over the five-year acs window, and 311-derived externality indicators (encampments, dumping incidents, graffiti) are each recorded at zero within 500 feet over 24 months. transit proximity and tpa/toc tier are not populated in the record, limiting transit-oriented development analysis. collectively, the tract signals a high-income, stable residential area with negligible distress and low development pressure from social-service infrastructure — a context in which hcm protections are operating in a low-stakes environment relative to the full hcm portfolio. | metric | value | |---|---| | census tract | 06037262301 | | median hhi | 250001 | | 5yr δ population | 227 | | 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. the median hhi of $250,001 and population stability suggest a submarket where owner-occupants have both the financial capacity and the incentive to maintain period-character housing as a amenity and status good; the building is unlikely to face imminent demolition pressure. however, the absence of architect prominence data, nrhp listing, or documented owner investment activity prevents a higher survival-without-protection score — the building's market resilience is inferred from neighborhood wealth rather than from asset-specific evidence. axis b (tourist/cultural currency) scores 0; no google reviews, wikipedia traffic, walking-tour inclusion, or nps designation is on record, indicating the property generates no measurable external visitation. axis c (subsidy efficiency) scores 0 because no mills act contract, federal htc, or other subsidy instrument is identified — this is not a failing score in the pejorative sense, but a null: there is no subsidy stream to evaluate for efficiency or waste. axis d (externality load) scores 0 at medium confidence, consistent with the zero 311 events and absence of code complaints; the property imposes no documented negative spillover on adjacent parcels. axis e (neighborhood health) scores 9 at high confidence, directly reflecting the top-coded hhi and positive population trajectory; the surrounding district is thriving and does not exhibit the distress conditions that would heighten urgency of protection or, conversely, signal that hcm status is propping up a blighted asset. axis f (alternative use value) scores 0 because parcel acreage, zoning capacity, and tpa/toc tier are all null — redevelopment upside cannot be quantified. the candidate flag is not triggered: a=5 exceeds the a_max of 4, e=9 exceeds the e_max of 5, f=0 falls below the f_min of 6, and overall confidence is rated 'unknown' rather than meeting the 'medium' minimum. the dominant analytical problem is data sparsity: four of six axes carry 'unknown' confidence, which prevents any high-confidence disposition. the reassess flag is therefore the correct output — it signals that the property is neither clearly worth aggressive protection nor clearly a candidate for deaccession review, and that field validation is required before any policy action.
sources
- la311: https://data.lacity.org/resource/h65r-yf5i.json?$where=within_circle(location%2c%2034.0749020199125%2c%20-118.48557140986347%2c%20152)%20and%20createddate%20%3e%20'2024-05-11'&$limit=1000 --- _generated by hcm-1200 orchestrator on 2026-05-11t03:51:23.512z._