Loading...
sr-060909-6aC7® City of ®I~y ~®M®®iA'I ^\~ip® Santa Monica City Council Meeting: June 9, 2009 Agenda Item: ~O'~' To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of the Multi-Family Residential Apartment Complex Located at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council uphold appeal 09APP-001 and deny the 301 Ocean Avenue Landmark Designation application based on the findings presented in this staff report. Executive Summary The appellant, Trammell Crow Company ,(301 Ocean Development LLC), requests that the City Council overturn the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate the multi- family residential apartment complex located at 301 Ocean as a City Landmark, pursuant to Landmark Designation Criterion #3, based on the property's identification with locally significant historic personage Clo Hoover. The Landmarks Commission filed the designation application for 301 Ocean Avenue on July 14, 2008. On January 12, 2009, the Landmarks Commission designated the 47-unit apartment complex as a City Landmark pursuant to Criterion #3 by a vote of 4-3. As detailed more fully in this report, the Landmarks Commission found that the apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is identified with locally significant historic personage Clo Hoover because she resided at the property for 45 years and during her residency, served as a City of Santa Monica Council member for fourteen years; was the City's first female mayor; and was a successful and effective community leader who had a vision for conserving the scenic and historic aspects of Santa Monica Bay. The staff and consultant reports presented to the Landmarks Commission did not support designation of the apartment complex as a City Landmark under any of the six Landmark criteria. More specifically, staff did not support designation of the apartments pursuant to Criterion #3, in part because, while former Council member Clo Hoover is significant as the City's first female mayor and for her longstanding work on key issues that were important to the community at large, her significance is derived from her work performed in the public realm and it is unclear how the 47-unit apartment complex at 1 301 Ocean Avenue is related in a clear manner to the significant aspects of her productivity and public career as an elected official. In consideration of the full record to date, it is recommended that the Council uphold the appeal and deny the Landmark Designation application for the 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue. This report highlights the points of the appeal, the Landmarks Commission's action, and staff's assessment of the property in light of the six Landmark designation criteria. The recommendation on this matter does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. Discussion Property Description The 301 Ocean Avenue parcel is an approximately 43,814 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. The 47-unit post-World War II apartment complex consists of two buildings with a landscaped courtyard and swimming pool. Both buildings are common examples of post-war multi-family residential buildings incorporating typical design and features popular during the 1950s. The property was developed by the 301 Ocean Avenue Corporation and Chester A. Hoover and Clo Hoover in three phases from 1952 to 1958 following the Hoover family's move from Louisville, Kentucky to Pacific Palisades in 1946. Research indicates that the number of units on site has increased over the years from 17 units to the current 47 units. Mr. and Mrs. Hoover resided at the address until their deaths in 1965 and 1997, respectively. In 1952, the Hoovers, through the 301 Ocean Avenue Corporation, constructed the first of the two apartment buildings at the property. This building (Building A) was designed to serve. both as their personal residence and as an investment. Records indicate that, over the years, the Hoovers resided in at least one apartment unit in Building A. Santa Monica-based architect Joseph M. Estep served as architect and J.B. Wainsley or Wamsley (handwriting on permit unclear), also of Santa Monica, was the building's contractor. Building A parallels a narrow rear alley along the parcel's east boundary and was 2 originally two stories in height when built in 1952; however, it was extensively modified in 1958 when a third story with an open roof deck was added. It is rectangular in plan and capped by aloes-pitched hipped roof with deep overhanging boxed eaves. The exterior has smoothly finished stucco surfaces. Fenestration on the first and second stories consists primarily of multi-pane steel-framed fixed and casement windows. The second building on the property (Building B) was constructed in 1954 as a 21-unit two-story apartment building with a W-shaped footprint along the west and south sides of the parcel. Draftsmen A.L. Collins and T.H. Kendall drew the plans with the Wilson Brothers Company serving as contractor. Building Bhas aloes-pitched, hipped roof with deeply overhanging boxed eaves. Smooth stucco and faux vertical wood siding sheathe the building's exterior. The building is elevated above street level due to a semi- subterranean parking garage that is accessed from down-sloping entrances on the northeast and west ends. Additional enclosed single-car garages are located near the south end of the building. Building B has fenestration consisting of fixed and sliding aluminum windows with wood frames. <,,. ~s~~a 301 Ocean Avenue at the Corner of Ocean Avenue & San Vicente Boulevard: Building A (left); Building B (right) Historic Resources Inventory Status The subject property is located within the original boundaries of Phase I of the City of Santa Monica's Historic Resource Survey conducted in 1983-1986. During Phase I and Phase II of the survey, all buildings in the City were surveyed, regardless of age; 3 however, emphasis was placed on identifying and documenting pre-World War II sites. In addition to reviewing properties against standards similar to today's Landmark designation criteria, Phase I surveyors were also looking for properties that "contribute to the continuity or character of the street, neighborhood, or area". During the Phase I survey, a potential historic district comprised of courtyard apartments was identified on San Vicente Boulevard between 7th Street and Ocean Avenue. The 301 Ocean Avenue property was not identified during Phase I of the City's historic resource survey as either a contributor to the proposed district on San Vicente Boulevard between 7th Street and Ocean Avenue or as an individually eligible historic resource. The 301 Ocean Avenue property is also located within the boundaries of the 2001-2002 North of Montana Area Historic Resources Inventory Update. This survey evaluated the entire area of the City bounded by Palisades Park to the west, Montana Avenue to the south, 26th Street to the east, and the City's boundary just north of San Vicente Boulevard. The goal of this update was to re-evaluate previously-identified, potential historic districts in the survey area, and to identify properties constructed between 1933 and 1952 that may not have been considered historic at the time of the Phase I and Phase II surveys (1983-1986) since they had not, at the time, reached a benchmark age of 50 years. In the update, the 301 Ocean Avenue property was again not identified as either a contributor to a proposed historic district or as an individually eligible historic resource. It does not appear that any of the City's surveys assessed the property for its potential association with Clo Hoover Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission filed a Landmark Designation application for 301 Ocean Avenue on July 14, 2008. The public hearing for the 301 Ocean Avenue Landmark application was opened on December 8, 2008; it was continued for one month at the property owner's .request after taking testimony regarding the pending. application from 4 members of the public who were unable to attend the January 12th meeting, and after taking testimony from members of the public to specifically speak about the requested continuance. At its January 12, 2009 meeting, after listening to public testimony both in opposition and in support of the Landmark application, and after extensive Commission discussion, the Commission determined by a vote of 4-3 that the apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue met one of the six designation criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100. The Commission found that the 47-unit apartment complex is identified with a locally significant historic personage, Clo Hoover, and therefore should be .designated a City Landmark pursuant to Criterion #3 based, in part, on the following factors: • Clo Hoover resided at 301 Ocean Avenue for 45 years, from the time she moved to Santa Monica in 1952 with her family until her death in 1997. The apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was constructed for and owned by Chester and Clo Hoover as their permanent residence, and it was along-term source of family income. • During the time Clo Hoover resided at the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex, Hoover served as a City of Santa Monica Council member for fourteen years from 1961 to 1975, a pivotal period of Santa Monica's history. At the time she was first elected in 1961, Hoover was the second woman to serve as a Council member and in 1973 she was selected as the City's first female mayor. • During her tenure as Council member and .mayor, Hoover was an excellent example of a successful and effective community leader who was responsive to constituents and who also had a distinct vision for conserving the scenic and historic aspects of Santa Monica Bay. More specifically, Hoover was opposed to off-shore drilling, an offshore causeway, construction of an island in Santa Monica Bay, and the demolition of the Santa Monica and Newcomb Piers. Her positions on these issues were shaped, in part, by the location of her residence at 301 Ocean Avenue. • Hoover is significant for having been a role model and an advocate for increasing the role of women and minorities in city government. As the second and lone woman Council member for 12 of her 14 years and as the first woman mayor, Hoover was a pioneer, helping to end discriminatory practices against women wanting to serve their community through public office. Hoover was also known for her advocacy for women in public office. 5 Hoover was recognized for her extensive public service to the community through her volunteer work for local charities and institutions including the Santa Monica Red Cross, American Hospital Association Council on Hospital Auxiliaries, Rehabilitation Service Guild, Santa Monica Hospital Women's Auxiliary, Santa Monica Sister City Association, and the Salvation Army Ladies Auxiliary. The dissenting Commissioners did not believe that the 47-unit apartment complex met any of the six Landmark Designation criteria and therefore should not be designated a City Landmark based, in part, on the following factors: • Clo Hoover was a significant and beloved community leader; however, the nexus or relationship between Hoover's contributions and the 47-unit apartment complex is not strong enough to warrant designation. Therefore, designating the apartment complex is not an appropriate way to recognize Mayor Hoover's leadership. • While the building appears to be important within the .context of a potential district along San Vicente Boulevard, ;it does not rise to level of an individual City Landmark based on its architecture because it is a common example of a post- war multi-family residential complex and the Landmark Teriton Apartments immediately next door are a better example of the property type. • Staff's discussion of the property in light. of National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons is helpful because it provides the Commission with guidelines to help determine the significance of a historic personage and it also presents the perspective that a strong connection between the historic personage and the building should present. • Clo Hoover should be publicly recognized in the community; however, designating 301 Ocean Avenue would not be the best way to honor Mayor Hoover, in part, because it is not the best representation of her contributions to the City. The full text of the Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action, which. was adopted on February 9, 2009, is presented as Attachment B. The December 8, 2008 staff report, January 12, 2009 staff report, PCR Services Landmark Assessment Report, January 12, 2009 meeting minutes, and February 9 2009 meeting minutes. are presented as Attachments B, C, D, E, F; and G respectively. 6 Appeal Summary The appellant filed an appeal on January 21, 2009 and asserts that the Landmarks Commission erred in its decision to designate the 47-unit apartment complex ("301 Ocean Avenue") as a Landmark based on its identification with locally significant historic personage Clo Hoover pursuant to Criterion #3. The following is a summary of the appellant's statement; the full text of the appeal is contained in Attachment A: • 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfy any of the Landmarks Ordinance's six criteria for City Landmark designation, and there is no substantial evidence supporting the Landmarks Commission's decision to the contrary. While the Landmarks Commission, City staff, the City's consultant, and the appellant all agree that 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfy Criteria #1, #2, #4, #5, and #6, the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark based solely upon Criterion #3 is contradicted by the evidentiary record and should be reversed on this basis. o Two highly qualified historic preservation experts have evaluated the property to assess whether it meets the criteria for Landmark designation. The City's consultant, PCR Services Corporation ("PCR"), and preservation architect Robert Chettel, both determined that the property does not qualify as a Landmark under any of the six designation criteria. More specifically, both concluded that this property does not satisfy Criterion #3 because there is an insufficient connection between Ms. Hoover's civic and political contributions and this property.. o There is no substantial evidence in the record that contradicts the two professionally prepared assessments cited above, and City staffs analysis and recommendation. In the absence of such evidence, the Landmarks Commission relied upon conjecture and speculation about whether Ms. Hoover's civic and political actions were "inspired" by the location of her residence. Such speculation and conjecture does not constitute a legal basis for designation of a City Landmark. See Beth Grosvenor Boland, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, National Register Bulletin 32, Discussion Point #10, p. 22 ("Nominations should not be based on speculation or assumptions not based on evidence"). ® The Landmarks Commission abused its discretion by designating 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark. More specifically, Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.100 provides that, in the event a property meets one or more of the six criteria for Landmark designation, the Landmarks Commission (or City Council on appeal) "may' designate it as a City Landmark. Thus, in accordance with this section, even if 301 Ocean Avenue is mistakenly determined to satisfy Criterion 7 #3, the Landmarks Ordinance provides the Landmarks Commission (and City Council on appeal) with discretion as to whether or not to designate it. The Landmarks Commission abused its discretion by designating 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark based on the following reasons: o The City has not previously designated a City Landmark based solely on Criterion #3; therefore, the Commission's action is a departure from the City's long-standing administrative practice. o The City has not designated the former home of a notable elected official as a City Landmark; instead, the City has designated public places closely associated with their public service and contributions: Christine Emerson Reed Park; Ken Edwards Center; and Barnard Way. o Designation of 301 Ocean Avenue will not effectively convey to the public Ms. Hoover's contributions as Santa Monica's first female Mayor, an advocate for women in civic and political affairs, and as a protector of our piers and beaches. o The City has far better alternatives to honor Ms. Hoover in public locations closely linked to her public service and contributions. o Recognizing Ms. Hoover's service in a public place will convey her contributions to the public; landmarking her former home, a place of no architectural or other significance, will not. ® The Landmarks Commission committed procedural errors prejudicial to the appellant that warrants reversal of the Commission's decision to designate the property as a City Landmark. o It was disclosed that a conversation between two Landmarks Commissioners regarding how another jurisdiction handles designation of properties associated with historic persons occurred after the public hearing commenced on December 8, 2008 and then. was continued to January 12, 2009. Because the Commission is the applicant in this matter, -this conversation violated Landmarks Commission rule 27(d) which prohibits ex parte communications from occurring after a public hearing has commenced. Because the two Commissioners involved in the conversation were two of the four who voted in favor of this designation, and their conversation turned out to be the basis for the Commission's decision, their violation of rule 27(d) should result in their votes being disallowed and the Commission's designation being reversed. o Rule 27(a) requires disclosure of the substance of ex pane communications with "applicants, appellants, or members of the public'; however, Commissioners failed to thoroughly and adequately disclose 8 prior to the hearing the substance of their oral communications with members of the public. o The appellant was denied a fair administrative hearing by an impartial decision-maker because the Landmarks Commission was both the applicant and the decision-maker. This dual Commission role necessarily introduced an element of bias that prevented the appellant from receiving a fair hearing. The City Council, in its de novo review of this appeal, may approve the Landmark designation of the 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council may grant the appeal or uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission, in whole or in part, based upon these criteria. Appeal Analysis Based on the full record to date, staff continues to take the position that the subject property does not meet any of the six designation criteria, including Criterion #3. 9 Therefore, staff continues to recommend denial of the 301 Ocean Avenue Landmark Designation application, as detailed more fully in the staff report provided for the Landmark Commission hearings (Attachment D). The following discussion presents summary analysis of 301 Ocean Avenue in light of the six Landmark designation criteria contained in SMMC 9.36.100 and summarizes the basis for staffs determination. For the purposes of this analysis, Discussion of Criteria #1, #2, #4, #5, and #6 will precede a more detailed evaluation the property in light of Criterion #3. Analysis of Designation Criteria Criterion #1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is a typical and unremarkable example of post-war multi-family residential architecture, amulti-family housing type that was popular in Santa Monica from the years following World War II through the early 1960s. The property's Building A, designed by architect Joseph M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials has been compromised. The property was built in stages, lacks unity of design and minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi- family residential architecture. Aerial View of 301 Ocean Avenue at the Corner of Ocean Avenue & San Vicente Boulevard 10 It does have a central courtyard and some basic elements of Modern design and construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification as a Garden Apartment (see aerial photo on the preceding page). The apartment complex was developed by Mr. and Mrs. Hoover as income property and the penthouse apartment was the Hoover's primary residence during the period of Clo Hoover's productive life. as a City Council member and Mayor, but the subject property is not emblematic of the economic, political or architectural history of the City or of Clo Hoover's tenure as a City Council member or as the City's first female mayor. Furthermore, the property does not have significant cultural or social associations. For these reasons the subject property does not exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City of Santa Monica and therefore does not satisfy this criterion. Criterion #2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue does not meet this criterion. As a typical example of a post-war multi-family residence that has been altered over the years, the building lacks sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for designation pursuant to this criterion. Criterion #4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. Criterion #4 addresses the characteristics or attributes of a building and its architectural design. Staff interprets this criterion to require a high threshold of architectural distinction, which the property at 301 Ocean Avenue does not embrace. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is a common, undistinguished example of a 11 post-war multi-family residential complex that was built in stages from 1952-1958. It is a typical and common example of a post-war multi-family residential complex constructed in the Palisades Tract along San Vicente Boulevard and other major corridors in Santa Monica during the post-war period. The property does not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics in that it incorporates typical features associated with post- war residential architecture such as its massing, low-pitched roof, overhanging eaves, and stucco finish. 301 Ocean Avenue is not an excellent or unique example of its type and lacks unity of design found in noteworthy examples of post-war multi-family residential architecture present on San Vicente Boulevard that more fully articulate the key design elements of the idiom. The property's Building A, designed by locally significant architect Joseph M: Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity of design, workmanship, setting, and materials has been compromised. Furthermore, the subject property does not embody the distinguishing characteristics or character-defining features of the Garden Apartment type and does not meet the requirements for eligibility as a contributor to the potential courtyard apartment district. Most notably; 301 Ocean Avenue is laid out on the periphery of the irregular lot, and not setback from the street. On the San Vicente Boulevard facing elevation, the exterior of the building is just a few feet from the property line maximizing the units on the lot and creating a private interior courtyard separated from the street. The entrance to the courtyard from San Vicente is along a narrow paved walkway through a small gap between Building A and the driveway leading to the subterranean parking which is adjacent to the northeast edge of Building B. Finally, the apartment complex does not reflect the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. There are no unusual materials employed and the craftsmanship does not stand out from many other buildings of this era or reflect the hand of a master designer. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. 12 Criterion #5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect The original architect. of the property's Building A, Joseph M. Estep, was a locally important architect practicing in Santa Monica. However, the original design for Building A was thoroughly compromised when the building was substantially altered in 1958 with the addition of a third story. Asa result, the property is not a significant or representative example of Estep's work and does not meet this criterion. Criterion #6: Unique location, singular physical characteristic, or established and familiar visual feature The subject property is located on the curve where San Vicente Boulevard meets Ocean Avenue opposite Palisades Park, but its location on a corner lot is not unique. The curved elevation of the property's Building B, which hugs the perimeter of the property near the sidewalk, and the building's relative prominence as viewed from Ocean Avenue or the promenade in Palisades Park does not qualify the property as an established visual features of the neighborhood. The curved design is not a singular physical characteristic but is largely a function of the pie-shaped parcel upon which the property is situated. In all likelihood the apartment complex was designed to accommodate the greatest number of units with the available ocean views. Its relative visual prominence is primarily due to its location on the corner of San Vicente and Ocean Park rather than the building's design. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history At the request of City staff, PCR Services Corporation prepared an .independent, historical assessment of the 301 Ocean Avenue property and evaluated the potentially significant historic association between the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex and former Santa Monica City Council member and Mayor Clo Hoover, co-owner and long- time resident of the property. The full results of PCR's analysis of the property's 13 potential historic associations pursuant to Criterion #3 consist of the following three components (Attachment E): 1. A background narrative history of Clo Hoover's career as an elected official; 2. An assessment of the significance of Hoover's career as an elected official within a local historic context; and 3. An assessment of the potential significance of the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex in light of Hoover's ownership and residency. With respect to evaluating the property pursuant to Criterion #3, the following summary discussion is focused on the second and third components outlined above. Assessing Clo Hoovers Political Career for Potential Historic Significance Most elected officials, including mayors, do not accumulate a lifetime record of public achievements sufficient to reach the threshold necessary for official recognition as a historic personage within the specific context of a historic resource assessment. Part of the challenge in assessing the career of alocally-elected official -particularly an elected official from the recent past -derives from the need to develop a clear understanding of the individual's achievements within a historic context. More specifically, there is a need to distinguish between the important but typical work locally-elected officials are, in essence, expected to do on behalf of the public, and other contributions that may rise to a higher level of significance within a broader historic context. In many cases, the passage of time, and the perspective gained from watching a community evolve over time, allow for such an assessment of an individual's role in shaping the community in which s/he has served. The current evaluation of Clo Hoover and her political career is unique in the sense that, like other previously-elected officials from Santa Monica's recent past, a comprehensive analysis has not yet been conducted and because the current endeavor to evaluate the meaning of her public work is being prepared in conjunction with an evaluation of the potential historic merit of an apartment complex. 14 For research purposes; the relative importance of Clo Hoover's contributions to Santa Monica was compared with other individuals who also served as mayor. Based upon the comparative research of eight former City mayors presented on pages 15-18 of Attachment C, it appears that Clo Hoover's productive life, which included being Santa Monica's second woman Council member and the first woman mayor, meets the threshold of significance to be considered an historic personage in the history of Santa Monica. Hoover's significant achievements as the second and lone woman Council member for 12 of her 14 years and as the first female mayor, helped end discriminatory practices against women seeking to serve their community through public office. Furthermore, Hoover was known for her advocacy for women in public office, which she often lectured about during her years as an elected official. Thus the combination of Hoover's success as a woman in government and her advocacy for ending discrimination against womeri serving in government makes Hoover an historic personage associated with the movement for political rights for women. The appellant does not challenge this determination of Hoover's local significance. Hoover's voting record showed that she expressed the minority opinion on several issues including opposing the proposed Causeway along the coast and the demolition of the Santa Monica and Newcomb Piers, and favoring regulating the use of large planes at the Santa Monica Airport. Her longstanding work on these key issues, as well her support for implementing the Ocean Park Redevelopment Plan and revitalizing the City's downtown, were important to the community at large -and while a notable part of her career as a public servant -does not rise to the threshold of individual historic significance. More specifically, Hoover's votes were cast in her role as an elected official, and voting for or against important issues is the expected activity for City of Santa Monica Council members. Although Hoover's votes on some of the above issues were in the minority, it appears that Hoover's connection to the issues was limited to her vote and vocal support for her political position on the issues as a Council member. Unlike her advocacy on behalf of the right for women to hold public office, it does not 15 appear that Hoover was actively involved in shaping the above issues as a private citizen and there appears to be no clear connection to them other than her voting record. Nevertheless, her minority votes on issues of public importance are a notable component of her role as a public servant. .Assessing 301 Ocean Avenue's Identification with Hoover Criterion 9.36.100(a)(3) does not provide guidance for assessing the type or quality of the association between a historic personage and the specific improvement under evaluation. In other words, guidance is not provided to assist in determining what it means for a property or improvement to be "identified" with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. While the current assessment is for eligibility at the local level and not for the National Register of Historic Places, the overall analytical framework for assessing the significance of a property for the National Register, as set forth by the National Parks Service, is a useful tool to assist in the evaluation of properties at the local level. For assistance in a case. such as this, when the building's potentially significant association is from the recent past and it possesses no architectural or contextual significance, it is generally accepted professional historic preservation practice to rely on the National Register's guidance for evaluating eligibility, upon which local evaluation criteria are ultimately based. In previous Landmark assessments prepared over the years, the City's consultant has routinely looked to and referenced National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997), to provide a framework for analyzing potential resources within the context of Santa Monica's local designation criteria. National Register Bulletins such as Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years and Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons provide a 16 more detailed discussion of the guidelines already established by the National Parks Service for evaluating properties for the National Register of Historic Places. It is also generally accepted professional historic preservation practice to reference these types of National Parks Service bulletins when directly relevant to key issues associated with the property being evaluated according to local criteria. In determining whether the 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is identified with Clo Hoover, it is helpful to refer for guidance to the National Register's discussion of eligibility under Criterion B (association with the lives of persons significant in our past) and National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons ("National Register Bulletin 32'). Criterion B of the National Register relates to .properties that "are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past." According to the National .Register, a property is eligible for landmark designation under this criterion as long as it is "associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance." According to National Register Bulletin 32 (Attachment C); a residence of someone .determined individually significant is eligible for National Register designation if the property represents in a clear manner the significant accomplishments of a significant individual while they lived in the residence. An example given in National Register Bulletin 32 for such a residence is a farm owned by early twentieth-century Illinois politician, Henry T, Rainey, known as a champion for the American farmer and American agriculture. The residence on the farm was determined eligible for the National Register under Criterion B because "The documentation shows the importance of the farm in understanding Rainey's significance by explaining both how operation of the farm .gave Rainey useful perspective on farm issues and influences in his actions in Congress, and how his operation of the farm 17 contributed to local and state agricultural practices." The connection between the productive life of Rainey and the residence is clear as the residence represents Rainey's significant accomplishments as a politician who advocated for farmers and agriculture. The analysis provided. in National Register Bulletin 32 is not without ambiguity. For instance, National Register Bulletin 32 also states that a person's home at the time (s)he achieved significance will usually represent any significant accomplishments that occurred while the individual was living in the home. However, when further considering the purpose of historic preservation at the local level, it seems particularly important to identify properties that represent in a clear manner and illustrate a person's specific significance in order to provide a community with a tangible, physical link to its history. Given the unique nature of the current evaluation, where there has been no other finding of contextual or architectural significance, it appears to be particularly important that the assessment of what it means for a property to be "identified" with a historic personage, as required by Criterion #3, be based on a clear and direct connection between the property and the productive life for which the individual has been recognized as significant. In this instance, in the absence of other contextual or architectural significance, it is unclear how the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex would convey its association with Clo Hoover's significance as Santa Monica's first female Mayor and an advocate for women in civic and political affairs, or with her other notable contributions to the City as a public servant. Since the City's Landmarks Ordinance was established in 1976, a number of private residences have been designated Landmarks under Criterion #3. In some of these instances, demonstrating that a significant individual had simply lived in the residence has satisfied the question of whether a property is "identified" with a historic personage. However, these residences have always been designated pursuant to at least one 18 additional Landmark criteria, recognizing that the property symbolizes, exemplifies or manifests at least one type of contextual significance; embodies physical characteristics of architectural or aesthetic significance; is an example of the work of a notable builder, designer or architect; or has a significant physical location or singular characteristic. A Landmark has not previously been designated solely for its identification with a historic personage, although the Landmark Ordinance does not require that more than one criterion be established in order to designate a property. Likewise, a Landmark application has not previously been denied because it only met Criterion #3. Given the unique factors of the current analysis, including this reliance on Criterion #3 alone, specific consideration should be given to what it means for the 47-unit apartment complex to be identified with Ms. Hoover in light of why she has been determined to be significant, the intent of historic preservation at the local level, and how a property such as 301 Ocean Avenue could convey its potential significance when it is not directly associated with Hoover's significant contributions. Clo Hoover resided at 301 Ocean Avenue for 45 years -from the time she moved to Santa Monica in 1952 until her death in 1997. The 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex was constructed for and owned by the Hoovers as their permanent residence, and it was along-term source of family income. Although the property is connected to Clo Hoover as her primary residence, the apartment complex does not have a direct connection to, or reflect or represent in a clear manner, the significant events associated with her productive life for which she has been recognized as a Council member, Mayor, and advocate for women's rights. More specifically, staff agrees with the appellant that there is no substantial evidence in the record to date that indicates that the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly informed Hoover's ideas or gave her useful perspective for her historic role as the second woman Council member in Santa Monica, her historic service as Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for women in public office. 19 Current research has identified only one reference to 301 Ocean Avenue and Hoover's service as a City Council member: a Los Angeles Times newspaper article dated April 5, 1973 stated that "[h]er apartment fronts the ocean and Mrs. Hoover said that is perhaps why she feels so strongly about some of the ideas that would mar the view - such as an island." However, as discussed above, it is the combination of Hoover's success as a woman in government and her advocacy for ending discrimination against women serving in government that makes Hoover an historic personage associated with the movement for political rights for women. Hoover's voting record, while an important part of her career as a public servant, does not rise to the. threshold of qualifying her for individual historic significance. Finally, while there has been speculation regarding social or political functions that were held at Hoover's apartment unit and the presence of a home office, research to date does not support a conclusion that she significantly conducted -her productive public work from this apartment unit. Therefore, it is unclear how the apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is related in a clear manner to the significant aspects of her public career as the second woman Council member, her role as Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for women in public office. It does appear that the property most directly associated with her tenure as a public official is Santa Monica City Hall, including the Mayor's office and the City Council Chamber. City Hall is a designated local Landmark and has been determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, the unencumbered views of Santa Monica Bay could be considered a part of her enduring legacy and those of many others who have contributed to the conservation of this natural resource. Appellant's Claim of Procedural Errors The appellant asserts that the Landmarks Commission committed procedural errors prejudicial to the appellant that warrant reversal of the Commission's decision to designate the property as a City Landmark. 20 Specifically, the appellant asserts that Landmarks Commission Rule 27(d) was violated as a result of a conversation that occurred between two Landmark Commissioners following the continuation of the December 8, 2008 public hearing. This conversation concerned the general designation practices of another jurisdiction. It was disclosed at the January 12, 2009 public hearing. Rule 27(d) provides that once a public hearing has commenced, no member of the Landmark Commission shall engage in any ex parte communication with applicants, appellants, or members of the public with respect to the matter which is the subject of the proceeding. Since the communication was between two commissioners, this rule was not violated. More specifically, although Section 9.36.120 of the Landmarks Ordinance authorizes the Landmarks Commission to file a designation application, once the Landmarks Commission initiates the review process, its role as applicant effectively ceases. It thereafter acts in aquasi-judicial capacity by reviewing the Landmark application and all evidence presented thereto and rendering a formal decision on the application. This is reflected ih Landmarks Commission Rule 14 which provides that at the hearing on an application; an applicant is allowed five minutes initially and three minutes in rebuttal. However, when the application is filed by the Landmarks Commission, there is no applicant testimony. Indeed, it has been long-standing City policy that aquasi-judicial body cannot file an application or appeal and thereafter act both as decision-maker and advocate. As addressed below, a contrary practice would raise due process issues. Since the conversation disclosed at the January 12, 2009- hearing was a communication between two Landmarks Commissioners and not between a Commissioner and an applicant, Rule 27(d) was not violated. In addition, the appellant misunderstands Rule 27(d). This provision was intended to preclude conversations between Commissioners and others while a hearing is ongoing since there would typically be no opportunity to reveal these communications and allow applicants/property owners/public to respond to these communications during public testimony. Here, these communications occurred between the first and second 21 hearings, were disclosed (even though not required) and the appellant and the public had the opportunity to respond to this disclosure. The appellant also asserts that Commissioners failed to thoroughly and adequately disclose prior to the hearing the substance of their oral communications with members of the. public pursuant to Rule 27(a), which requires disclosure of the substance of ex parte communications with "applicants, .appellants, or members of the public". However, all Commissioners made disclosures regarding all ex parte communications prior to both the December 8, 2008 and January 12, 2009 hearings. Based on staffs review ofi the meeting audio, no Commissioners disclosed .having ex parte communications specifically -with members of the public, with the exception of conversations with the property owner's (appellant) representatives prior to the December 8, 2008 public hearing. Therefore, since these ex parte communications occurred with the appellant's representatives, it is unclear what ex parte communications the appellant assert were not fully disclosed and how any lack of disclosure would be prejudicial to the appellant. It should also be noted that the rules do not require nullification of votes even if violated. Finally, the appellant claims that it was denied a fair hearing because the Landmarks Commission was both the applicant and the decision-maker. As detailed above, this is not an accurate characterization of the Landmarks Commission's role in this proceeding. While the Commission filed the landmark application, once it did so; it acted exclusively as decision-maker, not applicant. There is no question that the quasi-judicial decision whether to landmark a property is subject to due process requirements. Moreover, it is a basic due process principle that there be a fair hearing in a fair tribunal which means, in part, that the decision-maker cannot prejudge the specific issue to be adjudicated. However, the decision to file an application does not constitute prejudgment. This decision is necessarily a preliminary one. Indeed, the standard for Commission filing of an application is quite low -whether there is some credible evidence that the property might meet the criteria for a Landmark 22 designation. It is only if a Landmark application is filed and the Commission reviews the matter in that context that the Commission actually determines whether the property should be designated a Landmark. Additionally, any fair review of the Landmarks Commission's actual proceeding amply demonstrates that the Commissioners had not prejudged this matter prior to the commencement of the hearing on the Landmark application. Finally, the City Council's review of the Landmark application is de novo. Consequently, any alleged infirmity in the Landmarks Commission's proceedings is negated by the City Council proceedings. Conclusion Based on the whole of the record, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the appeal because the 47-unit apartment complex located at 301 Ocean Avenue does not meet any of the six designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and is therefore not eligible for City Landmark designation. Alternatives As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Uphold the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate the 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue as City Landmark based on Criterion #3. 2. Approve the Landmark Designation application for the 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue based on revised findings. Environmental Analysis The project is statutorily exempt from the .provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved. 23 Public Outreach The public notice for this hearing was published at least 10 days prior to the hearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. Correspondence received since the January 12, 2009 Landmarks Commission hearing is provided as Attachment I. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner ueveiopment Attachments A. Appellants' Appeal Statement B. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, January 12, 2009 C. Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Attachments, December 8, 2008 D. Landmarks Commission Staff Report and Attachments, January 12, 2009 E. PCR Services Landmark Assessment Report, December 2008 F. Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes, January 12, 2009 G. Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2009 H. Staff-Recommended Findings I. Correspondence received since the January 12, 2009 Public Hearing 24 ATTACHMENT A Appellants' Appeal Statement Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 24 4~1N iJ hi`C9 Y''Ae i9~:5 City of Santa IVionica Planning and Community Development Department City Planning Division c;,y n, (310) 458-8341 Santa Monica" J~1N 2 1 2009 APPEAL FORM (Please Type or Print all Information) Application Number Filed: By: APPELLANT NAME: Trammell Crow Company (301 Ocean Development __ APPELLANT ADDRESS: 2049 Century Park East, SuRe 2600, Los Angeles 90067 CONTACT PERSON:- Ken Kutcher Phone: (310) 451-3669 (all correspondence will be mailed to this address) Address-1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401 PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : OSLM-006 PROJECT ADDRESS: 301 Ocean Avenue APPLICANT: Santa Monica Landmarks Commission ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: December 8, 2008 & January 12, 2009 ACTION BEING APPEALED: 4-3 vote by the Landmarks Commission to designate the property at 301 Ocean Avenue as a local landmark pursuant to Criterion 3 of SMMC § 9.36.100(a)(3). Please state the specific reason{s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary): Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? ~ Yes _ No If yes, explain: See attachment. is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? _ Yes / No If yes, which cond"Mons and why: N/A Is the appeal related to design issues? _ Yes / No If yes, explain: N/A is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.7 _ Yes / No If yes, explain: N/A Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? / Yes No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why: See attachment. is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? _ Yes / No If yes, explain: N/A Is the appeal related to other issues? / Yes _ No If yes, explain: See attachment APPELLANT SIGNATURE: Kenneth L. Katcher, Attorney for Appellant NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report. Address: 301 Ocean Avenue Appellant: Trammell Crow Company (301 Ocean Development LLC) Applicant: Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Application No. LC-08LM-006 ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR APPEAL INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from the Landmarks Commission's 4-3 decision on January 12, 2009, designating the entire property at 301 Ocean Avenue -- including all 47 residential units in two separate buildings -- as a City Landmark. The challenged designation is based solely on Criterion 3 for the property's association with former Mayor Clo Hoover. ~ The Landmarks Ordinance lists six criteria guiding whether or not to designate a City Landmark.Z The third criterion contemplates designation for a property that "is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history." Never before has the City of Santa Monica designated a City Landmark based solely on Criterion 3. Prior to the Commission's decision, City Staff issued a report recommending against designating this property as a City Landmark. City Staffs recommendation was based in part on a report prepared by the City's long-standing historic resources consultant, PCR Services Corporation ("PCR"). -Both City Staff and PCR concluded that 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfy any of the Landmarks Ordinance's six criteria for City Landmark designation -- including Criterion 3. Appellant presents the following reasons for the City Council to reverse the Landmarks Commission's decision: 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfy any of the Landmarks Ordinance's six criteria for City Landmark designation, and there is no substantial evidence supporting the Landmarks Commission'sdecision to the contrary. 2. The Landmarks Commission abused its discretion in designating 301 Ocean Avenue a City Landmark because: • The City has never before designated a City Landmark based solely upon Criterion. 3; ~ Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.100(a)(3). z Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.100(a)(1) - (6). • The City's practice in recognizing important local political figures has been to name in their honor public places associated with their service and contributions, not to designate their homes as City Landmarks; and • 301 Ocean Avenue does not convey to the public, nor would it appropriately recognize, Ms. Hoover's civic and political accomplishments; far better alternatives are available. 3. The Commission's consideration of 301 Ocean Avenue was marred by procedural irregularities that, taken together, denied Appellant a fair hearing. These reasons are discussed more fully in Section II below. Because of the requirements of the Landmarks Ordinance, this appeal must be filed before the Findings and Determination for the challenged designation have been adopted by the Landmarks Commission. Moreover, because the Staff Report recommended against designation of this property, no draft findings supporting this designation have been seen as of the date of this appeal. Thus, Appellant reserves the right to supplement this appeal after adoption of the Landmarks Commission's Findings and Determination. II. REASONS FOR APPEAL A. The Landmarks Commission Erred In Designating 301 Ocean Avenue As 1. The Landmarks Commission, City Staff, PCR and Appellant all agree that 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfv Criteria 1. 2; 4, 5 and 6. Although the Landmarks Commission designated this property as a City Landmark, a majority of the Commission agreed with City Staff, the City's historic resources experts, and Appellant that 301 Ocean Avenue does not satisfy five of the six Landmarks Ordinance criteria for designation. The Commission essentially found: • This property does not exemplify, symbolize or manifest elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. (Criterion 1) • This property does not have aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. (Criterion 2) • This property does not embody distinct architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, nor is it a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. (Criterion 4) This property is not a significant or representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. (Criterion 5) This property does not have a unique location, nor does it have a singular physical characteristic, nor is it an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. (Criterion 6) Nor did the Landmarks Commission identify any character-defining features of the property. 2. The Landmarks Commission erred in determining that this property satisfies Landmarks Ordinance Criterion 3. The Landmarks Commission's decision to designate 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark based solely upon Criterion 3 is contradicted by the evidentiary record and should be reversed on this basis. Two highly-qualified historic preservation experts have evaluated the property to assess whether it meets the criteria for City Landmark designation. One of these experts -- PCR Services Corporation ("PCR") -- was retained by the City. PCR prepared two assessments of the property: a Preliminary Historic Assessment dated July 7, 2008 and a City Landmark Assessment Report dated December 2008. In its Preliminary Historic Assessment, PCR recommended that further consideration of the property should be undertaken in connection with a full landmark assessment based on the property's association with Clo Hoover. In its full City Landmark Assessment Report, consisting of 45 pages. ofthoroughly-researched analysis and evidence, PCR concludes: "Based on current research and the above assessment, the property located at 301 Ocean Avenue does not appear to meet any of the City of Santa Monica's Landmark Criteria." (PCR City Landmark Assessment Report, page 22.) found: More specifically, as to Criterion 3, after conducting a full assessment PCR "The subject property was the longtime residence of Clo Hoover who, as the second woman to serve as a councilmember and the City's first woman mayor, was a role model and an advocate for increasing the role of women in city government. Hoover was consistently recognized for her decades of service to Santa Monica, particularly as a woman in a political environment dominated by men. Nonetheless, even given the significance of Clo Hoover as an important personage associated with the movement for political rights for women in Santa Monica's history it does not appear that the subject property -occupied by 3 owner/resident Clo Hoover during the many years of her significant contributions to the City -would be eligible for local Landmark designation for its identification with a historic personage. The subject property does not convey or embody her ideals or symbolize her accomplishments in furthering the role of women or physically represent her contributions as a public official. The property has no direct connection to the significant events associated with her productive life as a Councilmember; Mayor, or advocate for woman serving in public offices. The multifamily dwelling did not directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her votes against the causeway, against allowing jets at the Santa Monica Airport, or for her support for preserving the Santa Monica and Newcomb piers. Nor did the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her historic role as the second woman councilmember in Santa Monica, her historic nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for woman in public office. Furthermore, the architecture and design of 301 Ocean Avenue, does not directly represent the political ideas of Clo Hoover. Therefore, the subject property is not clearly associated with productive life of Clo Hoover. There are other properties in Santa Monica that better represent her significant contributions fo the City. The property most directly associated with her tenure as a public official is Santa Monica City Hall, including the Mayor's office and the City Council Chamber. The City Hall is a designated local Landmark and has been determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, the unencumbered views of Santa Monica Bay can be considered a part of her enduring legacy and those of many others who have contributed to the conservation of this natural resource. Furthermore, there are no private homes belonging to mayors in Santa Monica that have been designated landmarks for their association with a significant personage." (PCR City Landmark Assessment Report, p. 23.) Preservation architect Robert Chattel (http://www.chattel.us/) also conducted a formal evaluation of the subject property. Mr. Chattel's report consists of 39 pages of analysis and evidence. Mr. Chattel's firm is comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61, App. A). Mr. Chattel has a statewide practice, including numerous properties in Santa Monica. Mr. Chattel has represented both governmental agencies and property owners "without sacrificing principles on either side." (Chattel Report, p. 1.) 4 Based on his investigation and analysis, Mr. Chattel concluded, "[A]lthough the subject property is associated with Clo Hoover, the first female mayor of Santa Monica, it does not appear eligible for local designation." (Chattel Report, p. 12.) Specifically, as to Criterion 3, Mr. Chattel concluded, "There would have to be something particularly noteworthy connecting the subject property and Hoover's political career to make the residential building significant for landmark designation under criterion 3 and [n]o such significant association can be demonstrated." (Id.) Based on the research and analysis performed by the City's expert, City Planning Staff recommended against designation of the property as a City Landmark: "Based on the research and evaluation of the multi-family residential property located at 301 Ocean Avenue, the property does not appear to meet the designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and is therefore not eligible for City Landmark designation." There is no substantial evidence in the record that contradicts the professionally prepared assessment reports by PCR and Chattel, and City Staffs analysis and recommendation. In the absence of such evidence, the Landmarks Commission inappropriately relied upon conjecture and speculation about whether Ms. Hoover's civic and political actions were."inspired" by the location of her residence. Such speculation and conjecture do not constitute legitimate bases for designation of a City Landmark. See Beth Grosvenor Boland, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, National Register Bulletin 32 (U.S: Dep't of the Interior, Nat'I Park Service), Discussion point #10, p. 22 ("Nominations should not be based on speculation or assumptions not based on evidence"). Granting this appeal need not hinge on disputing Ms. Hoover's status as an important (though relatively recent) figure in Santa Monica history and political life. Nor does Appellant dispute that Ms. Hoover and her husband built the two existing apartment buildings containing a total of 47 units or that she lived in one or two of these units during the time of her political career. But both sets of qualified professionals wha evaluated this matter, as well as City Staff, have concluded that this property does not satisfy Criterion 3 because there is an insufficient connection between Ms. Hoover's civic and political contributions and this property. National Register Bulletin 32 is helpful in assessing this issue. The subject property does not possess "exceptional significance" as to Ms. Hoover's relatively recent political career. (National Register Bulletin 32, p. 12.) Nor is the property historically connected with her life as a civil servant. The property does not "represent the significant aspects of [Hoover's] productiv[e] [life] in some clear manner." (National Register Bulletin 32, Discussion Point #8, p. 18.) The existing buildings do not provide a visual representation of her community contributions or her historic role as an early woman in local politics. The property has no direct connection to significant events associated with Ms. Hoover's political life. The buildings, which predate her political involvement, do not convey or embody her ideals. Nor do they symbolize her political accomplishments. The Landmarks Commission's narrow, four-person majority erred in ignoring this evidence and expert analysis. Based upon the evidentiary record, and a reasonable reading of Criterion 3, there is no basis for the Landmarks Commission's determination that this property satisfies Criterion 3. Accordingly, the City Council should reverse that decision. B. The Landmarks Commission Abused Its Discretion By Desianatina Lahdmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.100 provides that, in the event a property meets one or more of the six criteria for City Landmark designation, the Landmarks Commission (or City Council on appeal) "may" designate it as a City Landmark. Thus, in accordance with Section 9.36.100, even if 301 Ocean Avenue is mistakenly determined to satisfy Criterion 3, the Landmarks Ordinance provides the Landmarks Commission (and City Council on appeal) with discretion as to whether or not to designate it Appellant submits that the Landmarks Commission abused its discretion by designating this propefij as a City Landmark. In summary: 1. Although the City has designated 65 City Landmarks, none has been designated solely based on Criterion 3. Thus, the Landmarks Commission's action with respect to 301 Ocean Avenue is a departure from the City's long-standing administrative practice. 2. Never before has the City designated the former home of a notable elected official as a City Landmark. Instead, the City has designated public places closely associated with their public service and contributions: Christine Emerson Reed Park; Ken Edwards Center; and Barnard Way. 3. Designation of 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark will nbt effectively convey to the public Ms. Hoover's contribution as Santa Monica's first female Mayor, as an advocate for women in civic and political affairs, and as a protector of our piers and beaches. 4. The City has available far better alternatives to honor Ms. Hoover -- in public locations closely linked to her public service and contributions. These include City Hall (including the City Council office and City Council Chambers), Santa Monica Pier, and Palisades Park. Recognizing Ms. Hoover's service in a public place will convey her contributions to the public; landmarking her former home, a place of no architectural or other significance, will not. Thus, even assuming for the sake of discussion that Ms. Hoover's residency at 301 Ocean Avenue satisfies Criterion 3, the Commission abused its discretion by designating this properly as a City Landmark. Accordingly, the City Council should reverse this designation. C. The Landmarks Commission Committed- Procedural Errors Prejudicial To Appellant That Warrant Reversal Of The Commission's Decision To Designate 301 Ocean Avenue As A City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission's consideration of301 Ocean Avenue involved several procedural irregularities that, taken in combination, effectively denied Appellant a fair hearing by an impartial decision-maker -- an essential requirement of due process --and warrant reversal of the Commission's decision. These procedural irregularities included: 1. Landmarks Commission Rule 27(d) prohibits ex parte communications from occurring after the public hearing has commenced. Here, the public hearing commenced on December 8, 2008, and the matter was then continued. During. the resumed hearing on January 12, 2009, Commissioner Lehrer indicated that since December 9th she spoke with Commissioner Shari concerning what the City of Long Beach did with respect to landmarking properties associated with historic persons. Because the Commission is the applicant in this matter, this ex parte communication is barred by Rule 27(d): And because Commissioners Lehrer and Shari were two of the four Commissioners who voted in favor of this designation, and their conversation involved what turned out to be the basis for the Commission's decision, their violation of Rule 27(d) should result in their votes being disallowed and the Commission's designation being reversed. 2. Rule 27(a) requires disclosure of the substance of any ex parte communications with "applicants, appellants or members of the public:" Here, the Commissioners failed to thoroughly and adequately disclose prior to the hearing the substance of their oral communications with members of the public. 3. Appellant was denied a fair administrative hearing by an impartial decision-maker because the Landmarks Commission was both the applicant and the decision-maker. This dual Commission role necessarily introduced an element of bias that prevented Appellant from receiving a fair hearing. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the forgoing, Appellant requests that the City Council reverse the Landmarks Commission's decision designating 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark. ATTACHMENT B Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action January 12, 2009 Electroriic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 25 6-A FINDI GS AND DETERMINATION ~F TH LANDMARKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY O ~ SANTA MONICA.IN THE MATTER OF THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF AN APARTI~IIENT COMPLEX O8-LM-006 LOCATED AT 301 OCE/1N AVENUE AS A CITY LANDMARK SECTION I. An application wa .filed by the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission on July 14, 2008 to designate th apartment complex located at 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on December 8, 2009 and January 12,'',,2009, ereby designates the apartment complex located at 301 Ocean Avenue (APN # 479300 021) as a City Landmark based on the following finding: (3) It is identified with national history. The 47-unit apartment significant historic.. peroo for 45 years, from'the tin her death in 1997', The for and owned by Chest a long-term source of fai Ocean Avenue apartm~ councilmember for four Monica's history. 'Atthe woman to serve as a cc first female mayor. During hertenure as coi of a successful acid effe and who also had, a dist Santa Monica Bay. Mor offshore causeway, cc demolition of the Santa were shaped, in IJart, b~ With respect to the 301 newspaper article dated and Mrs. Hoover said th ideas that would mar the Hoover is also Signific~ increasing the rose of we personages or with important events in local, state or >mplex at 301 Ocean Avenue is identified with locally ige Clo Hoover. Clo Hoover resided at 301 Ocean Avenue she moved to Santa Monica in 1952 with her family until artment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was constructed and Clo Hoover as their permahent residence, and it was ly income. During the time Clo Hoover resided at the 301 t complex, Hoover served as a City of Santa Monica en years from 1961 to 1975, a pivotal period of Santa ne she was first elected in 1961, Hoover was the second ncilmember and in 1973 she was selected as the City's icilmember and mayor, Hoover was an excellent example live community leader who was responsive to constituents ict vision for conserving the scenic and historic aspects of specifically, Hoover was opposed to off-shore drilling, an istruction of an island in Santa Monica Bay, and the 1onica and Newcomb Piers. Her positions on these issues the location of her residence at 301 Ocean Avenue. )cean Avenue apartment complex, a Los Angeles Times April 5,.1973 stated that "[h]er apartment fronts the ocean t is perhaps why she feels so strongly about some of the view -such as an island." nt for having been a role model and an advocate for nen and minorities in city government. As the second and lone-woman councilmen Hoover was a pioneer, wanting to serve their co known for her advocacy during her years as an e Finally, for the yeers Ho recognized for hen exter councilmember and ms institutions including the Council on Hospital Auxi Women's Auxiliary, San Ladies Auxiliary. Based on the foregoing, identified with IoGally s satisfies this criterion. SECTION 11. I hereby certify the the final determination of the January 12, 2009 as determine r for 12 of her 14 years and as the first woman mayor, Iping to end discriminatory practices against women nunity through public office. Furthermore, Hoover was women in public office, which she often lectured about ted official. er was a Santa Monica resident, she was consistently re public service to the community, both for her role as >P and for her volunteer work for local charities and ~nta Monica Red Cross, American Hospital Association ries, Rehabilitation Service Guild, Santa Monica Hospital Monica Sister City Association, and the Salvation Army apartment complex located at 301 Ocean Avenue is cant historic personage Clo Hoover and therefore the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect andmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on by the following vote: AYES: Berley, Fresco, Lehrer, Shari,. NAYES: Bach, Genser, Clair Kaplan Each and all of the findings Viand determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral~and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in'the reord. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication t at a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Respectfully Submitted February 9, 2009 Barbara Kaplan, hairperson Attest: / l /1 ~ ., : , ~ / Roxanne Tanemori, AIC>P, Senior Planner Landmarks CommissiorM1 Secretary ATTACHMENT E PCR Services Landmark Assessment Report, December 2008 Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 28 301 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment Report Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Planning Division Prepared by: PCR Services Corporation Santa Monica, California December 2008 301 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment Report Environmental Setting The subject property, 301 Ocean Avenue, is a large pie-shaped lot comprised of lots 22 and 23 of the Palisades Tract. The sprawling post-World War II apartment complex situated on the lot consists of two multi-story buildings: a rectangular three-story building (Building A) on the east; and a two-story building (Building B) om the west with an irregular W-shaped footprint. Building permits indicate that Building A was originally two stories in height when constructed in 1952, becoming three stories when it was substantially modified in 1958. Building B was erected in 1954. The property is located in amulti-family residential neighborhood consisting primarily of two-story garden apartment complexes situated on lazge lots on both sides of San Vicente Boulevard. The subject property was developed by Clo and Chester A. Hoover. Republican Party member, Clo Hoover, was the second woman elected to the Santa Monica City Council and the first , woman elected by her peers on the City Council to serve as the (mostly ceremonial) Mayor of Santa Monica for atwo-year term. The job of Mayor of Santa Monica traditionally lasts two years and rotates among the elected City Councilmembers. Regulatory Setting The subject property was originally surveyed in 1983 during phase 1 of the citywide historic resource survey. At that time, all buildings in the City were surveyed, regardless of age; however, emphasis was placed on identifying pre-World War II sites. In addition to reviewing properties against standards similar to today's Landmark designation criteria, phase 1 surveyors were also looking for properties that "contribute to the continuity or character of the street, neighborhood, or area". A potential historic district, comprised of courtyard apartments, was located between 7a' Street and Ocean Avenue along San Vicente Boulevard. The subject property was found not eligible as either a contributor to the proposed district or as an individually eligible resource. The subject property was surveyed again during the Historic Resources Inventory Update: North of Montana Area 2001-2002, and again found ineligible for listing as a historic resource as either a contributor to the proposed historic district or as an individually eligible property. Preliminary findings of the 2007- 2008 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update indicated that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a potential "San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residential District" (a SD3 status code). Architectural Description Situated where San Vicente Boulevard curves northeast from Ocean Avenue, the subject property consists of a pair of apartment buildings with a landscaped central courtyazd and swimming pool. Both buildings are examples of post-war multi-family residential buildings incorporating common Modern-style design and features popular during the 1950s. The east building (Building A) parallels a narrow rear alley along the parcel's east boundary and was originally two stories in height when built in 1952; however, it was extensively modified in 1958 when a third story 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmazk Assessment Repoli page 2 with an open roof deck was added. Building A is rectangular in plan and capped by aloes-pitched hipped roof with deep overhanging boxed eaves. The exterior has smoothly finished stucco surfaces. Fenestration on the first and second stories consists primarily of multi-pane steel-framed fixed and casement windows. In contrast, the third-story windows are aluminum framed with large fixed panes flanked by sliders. A squared bay located near the north end, exterior staircases, cantilevered walkways with stucco-finished railings, and numerous apartment entrances characterize the building's primary (west) elevation. A projecting elevator shaft features a blue mosaic tile- covered exterior vestibule. An exterior enclosed staircase is located on the south elevation. Numerous carports and aground-floor residential unit punctuate the building's rear (east) elevation. Erected in 1954, Building Bhas a W-shaped footprint with the north wing paralleling the curve of San Vicente Boulevard and the south wing adjacent to the property's south lot line. Building B is two stories in height and is crowned by aloes-pitched hipped roof with deeply overhanging boxed eaves. It is elevated above street level due to the presence of a semi- subterranean parking garage that is accessed from down-sloping entrances on the northeast and west ends. Additional enclosed single-car garages are located near the south end of the building's west elevation. Smooth stucco and faux vertical wood siding sheathe the apartment's exteriors. Building B has fenestration consisting of fixed and sliding aluminum windows with wood frames. Concrete steps with metal railings lead to entrance walkways near the building's northeast, northwest and southwest corners. A covered second-story walkway connects the two buildings on the south end of the property. Mature subtropical foliage surrounds Buildings A and B (except along their rear elevations), particularly within the center courtyard area, where a grassy lawn and clipped hedges abut the concrete deck which surrounds an irregularly shaped swimming pool. A concrete-block retaining wall parallels the sidewalk along San Vicente Boulevard. The subject property does not appear to have undergone any substantial alterations since Building A was renovated in 1958. Historical Background Palisades Tracts The Palisades Tract within which lots 22 and 23 are located has remarkably intact examples of domestic architecture, primarily dating from the years 1906 to 1930. Established as a tract in 1905, it was laid out with broad, tree-lined streets that open onto Ocean Avenue and the Santa Monica Palisades. Seventh Street acts as the visual boundary on the east, although the tract was extended further inland in 1912 and 1913. Few houses face onto 4a' Street, which bisects the tract and is enhanced by a landscaped median. A circular park forms an island in the middle of the 600 block of Palisades Avenue, apparently intended by the developer to be one of a series of such spaces, although the only one realized. Within the tract, the Pacific Electric Railroad's right-of--way was centered on San Vicente Boulevard. Later, a landscaped median replaced the train tracks in the right-of=way; which is now characterized by grassy -lawns and mature trees. Shortly after the Palisades Tract was opened it was annexed to the City of Santa Monica. From that date, March 28, 1906, building records were kept by City officials and the first application to build was issued to the Alta Santa Monica Company for what is now 401 Marguerita Avenue. ~ Portions of this section were adapted from the "Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory: Final Report, " prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates for the City of Santa Monica, 198.1-1986. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk AssessmenC Report page 3 However, this was not the first building in the area, according to witness Luther Ingersoll in his Centzmy History of Santa Monica Bay Cities, who assigned the honor of building the "first costly and architectural" residence in the Palisades to H.N. Hammond. Several prominent members of the community, as well- as residents of Los Angeles and Pasadena in search of a seaside summer home, commissioned residences in the Palisades Tract. During the first fifteen years of development many homes were built in the Craftsman style. The more intense period of construction in the twenties yielded numerous fine eclectic revival-style homes, most of which were intended for year-round occupation. The work of several prominent architects exists in the neighborhood, as well as the projects of several notable Santa Monica building contractors who had an important impact on the development of the City. Based upon tax assessor records and Sanborn map research, it appears that a substantial . number of multi-family dwellings situated north of Wilshire Boulevard along San Vicente Boulevard and Montana Avenue had been constructed by 1950. Many more were erected between 1950 and 1960s, such as the subject property. The commercial development and population growth responsible for the increase in apartment complexes in the area was largely caused by the pre-World War II defense build-up and the post-World War II boom years after-1945 when the demand for housing exceeded supply. The Douglas Aircraft manufacturing plant in the southeast part of Santa Monica employed large numbers of local residents during the 1940s and into the postwar years. Similarly, the RAND Corporation provided employment to a large number of researchers and support staff after World War II. Multi-family dwellings in the area such as those within the tract's boundaries were built to house the many professional and blue-collar workers requiring housing in Santa Monica at that time. In addition, city directories indicate that retirees and widows also lived in Santa Monica following. World War II in apartment buildings. Garden Apartments Most of the mid-century multi-family residences erected along San Vicente Boulevazd between Ocean Avenue and 7th Street are two-story, set back from the street, and are arranged azound landscaped courtyards. Some of the Garden Apartments on San Vicente between Ocean Averiue and 7th Street have open courts with a continuous unbroken landscape that connects to the front yard, while others have the second story bridging over a ground floor entranceway that connects to the open courtyard. These plan and layout types are characteristic of the many garden apartment complexes that appeared in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California from the Depression-era 1930s through the 1950s. The origin of the Gazden Apartment reaches back to the period of the Los Angeles region's rapid growth in the early decades of the twentieth century when the bungalow court as a building type appeared and evolved. As a building- type, the bungalow court was accessible to small developers. Inexpensive land and small units made the bungalow court affordable to build and to rent. Bungalow courts were constructed throughout Los Angeles and Southern California from the first decade of the twentieth century through the 1920s. The Depression brought about a virtual halt in the construction of bungalow courts in much of the Los Angeles region and elsewhere. A few were built in the mid- to late 1930s, but for the most part these lacked the characteristics and features that distinguished the earlier courts. Starting in the 1930s, apartment complexes which covered a parcel more completely and provided rear or underground parking gradually supplanted bungalow courts as the favored multi-family building type. San Vicente Boulevard's aparhnent complexes are 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 4 indicative of this trend providing landscaped garden areas for the enjoyment of tenants along with ground floor, subterranean, or detached rear. parking garages. Similarly designed multi-family complexes also were built in other parts of Santa Monica, particularly along Montana Avenue during the 1930s through the early 1950s. The primary feature of the Garden Apartment type is the semi-public courtyard that is connected to the front yard or entered through a central covered entranceway: Although the subject property has an open court with a pool and landscaping surrounded by multi-family apartment wings on three sides, it does not have Garden Apartment-type semi-public courtyard connected to the property frontage. The courtyard within the 301 Ocean apartment complex does not embody this key feature of the Garden Apartment type. Most notably, 301 Ocean Avenue is laid out on the periphery of the irregular lot, and it is not setback from the street in a Garden Apartment layout. On the San Vicente facing elevation, the exterior of the building is just a few feet from the property line maximizing the units on the lot and creating a private interior courtyard separated from the street. The entrance to the courtyard from San Vicente is along a narrow paved walkway through a small gap between Building A and the driveway leading to the subterranean parking which is adjacent to the northeast edge of Building B. 301 Ocean Avenue with its private courtyard sLrounded by buildings on all three sides, does not embody the key features of the Garden Apartment type. Post-War Multi-Family Residential Architecture Although influenced by the materials and aesthetics of post-war Modern Architecture, post- war multi-family residential architecture is generally less formal in its expression of Modern design features and materials. Common features of post-war apartment complexes in Southern California included rectilinear massing; flat or low-pitched hipped roofs; overhanging eaves; stucco finish and/or wood siding; natural rock veneers; metal-framed fixed, sliding and/or casement windows; cantilevered balconies or exterior walkways; and custom signage or themed imagery on the primary facade. Garden courts, landscaping, and swimming pools were often integrated into the site plan. Parking garages were either incorporated into the ground level of the apartment buildings or provided in a separate ancillary building. The post-war multi-family residences were largely constructed quickly for low costs to provide for the immediate housing needs during the post-war era. The design rational for these ubiquitous post-war multi-family residences was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. Although some post-war multi-family residences have Modern-style open floor plans, functionally-organized facades, and glazed walls or ribbon windows, most do not. The subject property exhibits many of the character defining features of common post-war multi-family residential architecture including rectilinear massing, low-pitched hipped roofs, overhanging eaves, stucco finish, metal-framed windows, cantilevered balconies and exterior walkways. Local architect Joe M: Estep designed Building A which was completed in 1952. In 1958, Building A was substantially remodeled and a third story addition was constructed. While the original design may have modestly illustrated Estep's responsiveness to the social and economic needs of the community, this substantially altered apartment building, along with the additions and subsequent alterations to the complex as a whole, presently does not embody the distinctive qualities of the post-war multi-family residence. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 5 Architect Joe M. Estep The architect of the original apartment building, Building A, was Joseph (Joe) M. Estep, AIA (1888-1959). Based in Santa Monica, Estep originally came to Southern California from Ohio after graduating from the University of Illinois in 1912. During the 1920s and 1930s, he worked with architect Arthur Rowland Kelly (1878-1959) who was known for the many eclectic revival-style residences he designed for private clients in Brentwood, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, and Beverly Hills. In 1938, Estep established his own practice in Santa Monica and, that same year, collaborated with prominent architect; Donald B. Parkinson, in the design of Santa Monica City Hall. Estep's institutional commissions also included some of the 1950s and 1960s additions and new school buildings for the Santa Monica-Malibu School District (District) to accommodate the rapidly growing population of school-age children. Estep's work for the District exemplifies his knowledge, talent and skill as an accomplished local architect in Santa Monica during the post-war period. The school projects show Estep's mastery of the Modern style in their strict functionalism, open plans, fluid interrelation of interior and exterior spaces, and effective use of modern materials and construction techniques on a limited budget.z The original building perrnits for 301 Ocean Avenue indicate that atwo-story 17-unit apartment house and garage costing approximately $119,000 (Building A) was begun in 1952 for the 301 Ocean Avenue Corporation. Santa Monica-based Joe M. Estep served as architect and J.B. Wainsley or Wamsley (spelling unclear), also of Santa Monica, was the building's contractor. Rectangular in plan, it was erected on the east end of the pie-shaped parcel In 1954, a building permit was issued for a 21-unit two-story apartment building with an estimated cost of $190,000 (Building B) to be constructed on the remainder of the parcel with a courtyard centered between the two buildings. Draftsmen A.L. Collins and T.H. Kendall drew the plans with the Wilson Brothers Company serving as contractor. One year later, in 1955, a permit was issued for the installation of a swimming pool costing $3,800 in the complex's center courtyard. A cabana costing $1,000 was built near the north side of the pool later that year. In 1958, engineer Joseph Halpern working with Wilson Brothers contractors substantially altered Estep's original design of Building A. The building permits, historic photographs, and physical evidence reveal that a third story with 10 new units and a roof deck was constructed atop the existing two-story Building A. In addition, several ground floor units were replaced with carports, original exterior staircases were removed and new staircases built, an elevator shaft was attached to the west elevation, athree-story emergency staircase was erected on the south elevation, and Buildings A and B were linked together via a covered walkway. The cost of these substantial modifications was $89,091. Solar panels were installed atop the roofs of both buildings in 1983. In 2005, interior alterations to one of the units included the replacement of windows and doors, and the removal of stone veneer, according to the permits. Clo Hoover in City of Santa Monica History Clo Hoover (1907-1997) was born in Louisville Kentucky to parents Frank J. Struck and Pauline Schlichter. She attended the Business College of the University of Louisville prior to her marriage at age 20 to Chester A. Hoover. As aself-described housewife, she raised five children, z Margarita Wuellner and Jon Wilson, Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Measure BB Program, prepared for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, PCR Services Corporation, November 2008. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 6 the last of whom was born in 1940. Chester A. Hoover was the successful founder of a chain of automotive accessory stores, which he sold in 1946. With the proceeds from the sale of their business, the Hoovers relocated to Pacific Palisades that same year. In 1952, they commissioned the construction of a large apartment building at 301 Ocean Avenue (the subject property) in nearby Santa Monica that was designed to serve both as their personal residence and as an investment. Mr. and Mrs. Hoover continued to reside at the address until their deaths in 1965 and 1997, respectively. During the time she was a Santa Monica resident, Clo Hoover was active as a volunteer in local charitie5and institutions, especially hospitals. Her activities included:3 - Founder and President, Rehabilitation Service Guild - President, Santa Monica Hospital Women's Auxiliary - President, Santa Monica Breakfast Club - Chairman and National Director, American Hospital Association Council on Hospital Auxiliaries ("The first woman west of the Mississippi to be elected national director.")4 - Member, Advisory Committee to the Los Angeles County Hospitals - Chairman of Volunteers and director, American National Red Cross, Santa Monica Chapter - Advance Gifts Chairman, Santa Monica Community Chest, Bay Area Drives: American Cancer Society, Heart Foundation, March of Dimes - Co-Chairman, Santa Monica Republican Women's Club - Auditor (USC), Kappa Kappa Gamma Mothers' Club - President, Santa Monica Historical Society - Chairman, Santa Monica Sister City Association - Member, Salvation Army Ladies Auxiliary - Member, Santa Monica Rotary Anns Clo Hoover's awards and honors included: - Santa Monica's Woman of the Year, 1956 ("For her unselfish service to the community in the field of health")5 - Honorary Fellow, American College of Hospital Administrators (the first laywoman to receive such an honor)6 - Americanism Award, the highest national award given by the Daughters of the American Revolution Clo Hoover anti Women in Santa Moniea City Government Until 1957, no woman had ever been elected to the position of city trustee or councihnember in Santa Monica In that year Mrs. Alt's Drobnick (1921-1997) became the fast woman to sit behind the dais in the council chambers at City Hall. She served one four-year term, choosing not to run again in 1961. Susan J. Carrell, in her 1994 book "Women as Candidates in American Politics," provides, one explanation for the exclusion of women from the political arena, arguing, "The domination of politics by men [had] been viewed as a natural extension of the sexual division of s Clo Hoover biographical form, submitted March 2, 1961, to the Santa Monica Public Library. ° Santa Monica Evenine Outlook, "Bay Group Honors Clo Hoover. " Febn~ary 1 D; 19.16. p. 13. s Ibid e Los Aneeles Times, "Clo Hoover: Tough bait Fair Legislator. "April 5, 1973. p. 4. 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 7 labor within the family. Women's preoccupation with home and family [had] been seen as the reason for their relative absence from political positions. Because women [were] assumed to share the political views and preferences of their husbands and fathers, women's representation in the political sphere [had] not been viewed as an issue of major concern."~ Like Clo Hoover and many other women of the time, Drobnick had been active in community service, serving on the Santa Monica Recreation Commission, becoming chairwoman of the American Institute of Foreign Students, and serving as a public relations spokesperson for the Santa Monica Red Cross and Salvation Army.B Perhaps Rosalind Wyman's groundbreaking election to the Los Angeles city council in 1953 helped motivate women such as Alys M. Drobnick to seek public office in their own cities. Upon Drobnick's death in 1997, former mayor Nat Trives -the first African American to serve on the City Council when elected in 1971 -called her "a pioneer. She was a councilmember when the city was dominated by men. She stood up and said what she believed. She was one of my heroes." 9 The same year that Alys Drobnick retired from politics Republican Parry member Mrs. Chester A. (Clo) Hoover was elected to a two-year term on the Santa Monica City Council. Running on the platform of opposition to offshore oil drilling and despite a lack of support from the leading local newspaper -reputedly on account of her gender - Clo Hoover won the first of four elections to the Santa Monica City Council. Having lost her first bid for a council seat in 1960, Hoover defeated two incumbents to win the position in 1961, crediting women for her election. "The women did it by their diligent support," she stated, "Nothing was too much for them to do. They didn't just throw my campaign literature at the front door -they rang the doorbell and gave a little talk about their candidate.i10 Hoover noted that she was used to being the lone woman in an institution dominated by men, "I sat on the board of trustees of the American Hospital Association in Chicago for four years, and I was the only woman."' 1 Clo Hoover did not receive the endorsement of the Santa Monica Evening Outlook for her council bid when she ran for office in 1960 and 1961. When she had approached the newspaper's publisher, Robert E. McClure, to ask for his support he had suggested that she run for the school board instead; "He told me that he couldn't support a woman for the City Council."12 Shortly after taking office, Clo Hoover gave a talk entitled, "Opportunities for Women in Appointive Offices of Municipal Government" at a meeting of the Santa Monica Bay District, Business and Professional Women's Club. The program was arranged by the Political Promotion and Women in Public Office Committee.13 The talk was an early example of Hoover's active encouragement of increasing the role of women in government, a cause that she continued to ~ Carroll, Sz~san J Women as Candidates in American Politics Second Edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999, p. 1. a Santa Monica Evening Outlook. "Alys Drobnick, 1~` SM councihvomnn, civic leader, -dies. " Jan. 4, 1997, pp. BI and B2. 9 Ibid to Santa MonicaEvenfnQOutloo7~"CloCreditsWomenforHerElection."Apr. 72, 1961,pp.landll. tt Ibid. tz Daily Breeze, "History in the Taping. " Ju»e 21, 1992, p. BI. 13 Los Ans?eles-Times, "Councilmember to Give Talk "May 11, 1961, p. GIO. City Landmark Assessment Report page 8 champion during her 14 years as a councilmember.14 However, it appears that Clo Hoover was not directly involved in any Femirist organizations or causes, nor did she espouse Feminist ideas other than the need for woman in public office. Feminism, while no one defmition exists, generally advocated for women's legal rights including the right to vote or run for office and the right to own property. Feminists argued for the right to bodily autonomy including the right to abortion and reproductive freedom. Feminists also advocated for protection from sexual harassment, the right to maternity leave, equal pay in the workplace, and against other forms of discrimination. Clo Hoover was an advocate for woman in public office, but she does not appear to be associated with the Feminist movement. Key Issues Associated with Clo Hoover's City Council Career Causeway During her tenure in office, Clo Hoover often found herself voting in the minority in the Santa Monica City Council. In the late 1950s, relentless heavy traffic and numerous rockslides typified the stretch of Pacific Coast Highway located between Santa Monica and Malibu as it still does today. The California Division of Highways explored several possibilities to alleviate the problem, for example, by expanding the existing highway or developing an inland north-south freeway; however, these solutions were unpopular among local residents. In May 1958, The Los Angeles Times reported on a bold proposal that Mr. John Drescher was preparing for the California Highway Commission. Mr. Drescher, a local engineer, had developed a plan to construct a causeway off the coast of Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades in order to relieve coastal traffic pressures. Mr: Drescher argued that his proposal, at an estimated cost of approximately $15 million, was more economical than purchasing land to expand the existing coastal highway. In addition, an offshore causeway would increase beachfront property values, serve as a breakwater for new harbor development, and create a beachfront on the causeway's ocean side.ls Over the next several years, the bold concept would evolve into asix- to eight-mile long and eight-lane wide causeway as well as a new marina, beaches, resorts and residential islands. The causeway proposal gained key advocates and developed a broad base of support that included the California Highway Commission, Los Angeles County and City officials and the Santa Monica City Council, which voted in favor of the project in 1962. In 1963, the City Council created aseven- member "Causeway and Freeway Committee" to promote the project, which was increasingly touted not only for reductions to traffic congestion but for its considerable potential in expanding Santa Monica's tax base. In the 1962 vote, Councilman Wendell Corey voiced the loudest dissent. As news of the project spread, support grew; however, its critics also began to mobilize and voice their concerns. In 1964, The Los Angeles Times reported on the proposal's "first organized opposition," identified as the "Association to Save Santa Monica Bay Beaches," which was spearheaded by UCLA mathematician and local resident Dr. Basil Gordon. Mr. Gordon's group included a broad coalition of environmental activists as well as members. of the local surfing community who cited the project's 14 In 1969, while contemplating her retirementfrom public office, Hoover told the Santa Monica Evenine Ozztlook that she wozdd like to see another woman elected to the council following her departure. "It's a healthy situation to have women in city government, "she said, "I'd like to see another woman on the council and more women serving on the boards and commissions. " Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Clo Hoover to Retire in 2 Years. "Jzme 17, 1966, p. 17. 15 "Causeway Across Bay Envisioned, "Los Angeles Times. May 25, 19.18. Mark McGuigan, "The Road in the Sea, Part 1: Dreaming Big" The Santa Monica Lookout September 1993. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 9 potential detrimental impacts on surf, views, air, and water quality as well as the possibility of creating an opening for future local oil exploration.tb While Ms. Hoover initially supported the causeway, as the subject became increasingly heated during 1965, she changed her view. As the Santa Monica Outlook reported on May 13, 1965, Ms. Hoover explained, "...in the last few weeks people have been stopping me in the markets, writing letters and telegrams to me opposing the bi11....I think the measure should be put to the vote of the people. I will be guided by the majority."17 The Santa Monica City Council largely remained a champion of the project; however, Ms. Hoover continued her opposition to the causeway for the remainder of the controversy.18 The project's ever-expanding scope and cost required additional outside funding, beyond the reach of the City, which required partnership with City and County of Los Angeles and the passage of enabling legislation at the state level. The causeway's advocates, consisting of many of Santa Monica's prominent businesspeople and .community elites, moved forward with the required enabling act. The legislation easily passed both houses of the California Legislature in June 1965. In response, Dr. Gordon's coalition assembled 10,000 petition signatures urging California's Governor Brown to veto the proposal, which he did in September 1965. By this point, the causeway's chances for success were already slim, due in part to the influence of numerous concerned citizens' and others, including Santa Monica Councilman Mr. Wendell Corey and the Los Angeles Councilman Mr. Marvin Braude, both ardent conservationists who actively mobilized opposition to the proposal. While the causeway survived the veto, without the required political support and funding, it was still being discussed, but was effectively dead. At the City Council's September 12, 1967 meeting, a vote "to approve the joint powers agreement with the City and County of Los Angeles for the planning, development and operation of the Sarita Monica Causeway was presented and recommended by the City Manager.i19 The motion was approved with five votes over Hoover's "nd' vote (with one Councilman absent). The Santa Monica City Council's "Causeway and Freeway Committee" was abolished in 1967.20 In 1968, the City Council voted 10- 0 against the causeway proposal, which effectively ended the discussion. Santa Monica Airport Clo Hoover was closely associated with the members of the Santa Monica community who objected to the introduction of jet aircraft to the Santa Monica Airport due to potentially elevated noise levels on the adjacent Sunset Park neighborhood. In early 1973, Council motions to limit airport noise levels to 85 dB and to ban all jets at the Santa Monica Airport lost, with only Councilmen Hoover and McCloskey voting in favor.21 At the February 27, 1973 City Council meeting, Hoover and McCloskey were the only votes opposing an ordinance to establish noise level to "State Commission to See Causeway Plans, "Los Aneeles Times October 22, 1961. "Causeway Unit Plans First Meeting, "Los Aneeles Times. June 20, 1963. Mark McGuigan, "The Road in the Sea, Part III: Swept Away" The Santa Monica Lookout, September 1993. "Beach Areas Aroused Over Freeway Issues, "Las Angeles Times. September 3, 1964. "City, County Talks Due on Causeway, "Los Angeles Times. January 3, 1965. "Causeway Support Unit Organized, "Los Angeles Times. Jzdy 12, 1964. n "Clo Hoover Causeway View Told, "Santa Monica Evening Outlook May 13, 196.1. t $ "Causeway Support Unit Organized, "Los Aneeles Times July 12, 1964. to Santa Monica City Cozznci[ Minutes: September 12, 1962 20 Mark McGuigan, "The Road in the Sea, Part IV. The Dream Sinks"The Santa Monaca Lookout September 1993. "S[LL Chamber Expects Battle Over Causeway, "Los Angeles Times. May 6, 1965. "Commission Ended, "Los Aneeles Times. November 12, 1962 "Council Yotes Not to Join Plans for Causeway on Coast, "Los Angeles Times. May 3, 1968. 21 Santa Monica City Council Minutes, February 13, 1973. 301 Ocean Avenne City Landmark Assessment Report page 10 limits of 100 dB for aircraft operations.22 Yet another motion to prepare an ordinance banning jet aircraft was made by McCloskey and seconded by Hoover, again failing to garner additional votes when proposed in Mazch of that year.23 In a June 2, 1974 Los Angeles Times article, Mayer Clo Hoover commented about the City's support of the local airport, "It's the history of Douglas, what it did with regard to the economics of the community. It's also nostalgia, appreciation and pride."za Clo Hoover supported the regulation of jet traffic noise at the Santa Monica airport, in order to reduce the level. of noise impacts. Santa Monica and Newcomb Piers Although the Save the Pier movement was formed and largely won by the grassroots Santa Monica activists, Clo Hoover was a leading voice of opposition within the City Council, supporting retention of the Piers. Newspaper accounts from the period indicate that the City's remaining recreation piers were seriously dilapidated and a source of concern by some members of the City Council In 1970 Mayor Herbert Spurgin expressed his concern about the deteriorated Piers, "We either develop the pier as a tourist attraction, something the city can be proud of, or we can leave it the -mess it is."25 By November 10, 1971 the City Manager Perry Scott devised a plan to improve the waterfront. He proposed the construction of a 35-acre recreational island in Santa Monica Bay and the construction of a bridge to connect the island to the shore necessitating the demolition of the two existing Piers. The developer selected was the Mutual Development Corporation. The first City Council meeting held to discuss the proposal was on June 13, 1972 and met with fervent opposition from the Sierra Club and other interested Santa Monica community members.26 The City voted 6-0 in favor of the redevelopment plan and agreed to enter into a contract with the Mutual Development Corporation. Clo Hoover was not in attendance. On September 8, 1972, the anti-island group `Save the Santa Monica Bay Committee' headed by Pieter van Steenhoven filed a lawsuit in Santa Monica Super Court to stop the off-shore development in the Santa Monica Bay.27 On January 23, 1973 the City Council convened for the Santa Monica Island hearing. The City Council minutes for January 23, 1973 record that four of six Councilmembers voted to order the Bay Amusement Corporation (which leased the piers at the time) to demolish and remove the Santa Monica Pier and the Newcomb Pier.28 Voting in favor of demolition were Councilmembers Gabriel, Reidy, Rinck, and Dituri. Opposed were Councilmembers McCloskey and Hoover. Nat Trives was absent. The repercussions of the Council vote were profound as a grassroots movement to save the piers gathered significant public support. A group of pier merchants formed `Friends of the Santa Pier' to save the pier from demolition. The group was organized at Al's Kitchen, a restaurant on the pier, and was headed by owner Joan Crowe and manager Jack Sikking. The Friends of the Santa Monica Pier decided to pitch their argument to Los Angeles newspapers and radio, not the Outlook which they believed was anti-pier. As they suspected, the City of Los Angeles media was sympathetic to their cause and largely azgued against the demolition of the pier. Joan Crowe took out a $17,000 mortgage on her house to produce a booklet chronicling the pier's history to show the public that the pier was an important landmark in Santa Monica. Together with ~ Santa Monica City Council Minutes, February 27, 1973. 23 Santa Monica City Council Minutes, March 13, 1973. 24 Los Angeles Times. "SMAirport Future Not aFly-by-Night Issue. " June 2, 1974, p. WSl. 'S Jeffry W. Stanton, Santa Monica Pier: A History from 1875 to 1990 (Santa Monica: Donahue Publishing, 1990), p. 135. ze Ibid, p. 135. z' Ibid, p. 136. 28 Ibid 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 11 the Save the Santa Monica Bay Committee, the grassroots opposition to the pier demolition led the movement in defense of the pier. At several subsequent public hearings, the newly formed Friends of Santa Monica Pier brought large numbers of vocal pier supporters to council meetings. From behind the dais, Councilman McCloskey led the effort. to save the piers. Council minutes of February 13, 1973 record that McCloskey moved that the City Council rescind its demolition order "and that this Council pursue all logical action to preserve and enhance the use of the Santa Monica-Newcomb Piers."29 The action, seconded by Hoover, was tabled by the other Councilmembers. Later, during the same council meeting, Mrs. Hoover, in stating that she would like to have the measure regarding the retention of the piers on the ballot, moved that the matter be added to the. agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCloskey and lost with only Councilmen Hoover and McCloskey voting for the measure.30 However, by the next council meeting, public pressure had grown to the point that two of the councihnembers who had previously voted to demolish the piers -Gabriel and Rinck - proposed and seconded a resolution to rescind the demolition order and put the matter to a vote of the people.31 The resolution passed unanimously. Nonetheless, despite reversing their votes to demolish the piers, Councilmembers Gabriel, Rinck, and Reidy were swept from office in a remarkable upset on April 10; 1973 by candidates aligned with Friends of Santa Monica Pier.32 Only pier champion McCloskey, also up for reelection that year, kept his council seat. Culminating the tumultuous events of the previous three months, Clo Hoover, having supported the effort to save the piers, was unanimously elected Mayor by the new council on April 17, 1973.33 It is important to point out, however, that Clo Hoover was not always a foe of development. She often supported business causes such as the construction of Santa Monica Place and the Ocean Park Redevelopment Plan during her tenure.3a Hoover's Path to Becoming Mayor Clo Hoover had long sought the office of Mayor in Santa Monica. But as a woman in the then exclusively male world of local politics, Hoover was repeatedly passed over for the mostly ceremonial mayor's post, which was traditionally rotated among Councilmembers. `'Those old boys just sha$ed her year after year for mayor" her daughter Patricia Hoover May recalled. "They denied her because she was a woman." 3' Another explanation for Hoover's being bypassed for the mayor's job was suggested by the Los Angeles Times in 1973, which noted that her frequent votes in opposition to the city council majority "has not always pleased other members of the council and has probably been responsible for keeping her from being voted mayor by her fellow Councilmembers." 36 zs Santa Monaca Cary Council Minutes, February 13, 1973. 30 Ibid '1 Santa Monica City Council Minutes, February 27, 1973. sz Replacing Councilmen Gabriel, Reidy and Rinck were Reverend Fred M Judson, Donna O'Brien Swink, and Pieter van den Steenhoven. Neither Clo Hoover, Nat Trives, nor Anthony Dituri were up for reelection that year. ss Santa Monica City Council MinzUes, Apri117, 7973. 34 Santa Monica Evenini' Outlook. "Clo Hoover dies; was a longtime SMcivic leader. "June 27, 1997, p. 1. ss Ibid se Los Angeles Times, "Clo Hoover: Tough but Fair Legislator. "April S, 1973, p. WS1. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Repoli pale 12 In researching the question of why Hoover was not chosen mayor by her Council colleagues until 1973, City Council minutes for each of the seven Council meetings following municipal elections from 1961 through 1973 were reviewed.37 Unfortunately, the minutes are not especially revealing because they do not record the Council's discussions related to the selection of mayor; instead, only motions and Council votes are documented.. For example, the minutes for Apri120, 1965 record that Councilman Corey nominated Clo Hoover for mayor and Councilman Spurgin nominated Mr. Minter for mayor. The minutes then state, "After a ballot vote was taken, Mr. Minter, having received a majority of the votes, was declared Mayor." 38 No discussion related to the vote -and why Hoover was not elected Mayor -was recorded. Similarly, the Council minutes of April 18, 1967 note that "Mr. Sorensen moved to recess in executive session to discuss the selection of a mayor. After the meeting reconvened, Mr. Reidy moved to nominate Mr. Spurgin. Mr. Reidy moved that the nominations be closed and that a unanimous vote be cast for Mr. Spurgin. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wamsley and carried unanimously." It is unknown whether Hoover was even considered for the mayoral post during the closed-door session. Two years later, in 1969, the council again recessed in private session to discuss the election of a Mayor.39 Emerging from their session, Spurgin and Kingsley were both nominated for the mayoral post with Spurgin getting the majority of Council votes. At the City Council meeting. of April 20, 1971, the minutes indicate that Councilman Kingsley nominated Clo Hoover as Mayor, and Councilman Reidy nominated Kingsley for the post. Kingsley won with four votes over the three for Hoover -with Kingsley voting for himself despite having nominated Hoover as Mayor.no Finally, in 1973, following a contentious city council election in which three incumbents were ousted, the new city council unanimously elected Clo Hoover the first woman Mayor of Santa Monica.41 Yet, just one year after attaining the post, several councilmembers appear to have urged her to resign as mayor so that one of them could take the office. In a strongly worded editorial in the April 8, 1974 edition of the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, the newspaper denounced the potential forced resignation, stating: "In the year that she has been the city's first woman mayor, she has performed the duties of the post outstandingly. Always gracious, she has represented the city in a distinguished manner at every occasion the office of mayor has called upon her to fulfill. As the presiding officer at council meetings- - often during very difficult, trying and emotional circumstances -she has remained calm, even-handed and firm."42 Hundreds of Hoover's supporters crowded the council's next meeting to urge the councilmembers to abandon their ouster of the mayor. City Council minutes for the April 9, 1974 meeting record only that "Reverend Judson moved to table the discussion of the rotation of the offices of Mayor and Mayor Protempore. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Swink and carried with Councilmen Judson, Lawson, McCloskey, Swink and Trives voting AYE." Hoover continued her service as. Mayor for one more year, upon the conclusion of which, in 1975, she retired from the City Council. After 14 years, Clo Hoover had served far longer than any then-sitting member of the city council. Thereafter, Hoover made two 3' Santa Monica City Council Minutes reviewed: Apri[ 18, 1961; Apri116, 1963; April 20, 1965; April 18, 1967; Aprill$ 1969; Apri120, 1971; April 17, 1973. '8 Santa Monica City Council Minutes, Apri120, 1965. '9 Santa Monica City Council Minutes,. April Li, 1969. "° Votin or Kin sl as M or were Dituri, Gabriel, Rei and Kin sl Votin g f g ey ay dy g ey. g for Hoover were McCloskey, Trives, and Hoover. 41 Santa Monica City Council Minutes, Apri117, 1973. az Santa Monica Evenine Outlook. "Mrs. Hoover Deserves Support. "Apri18, 1974. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 13 unsuccessful bids as a Republican candidate for the state Assembly in 1976 and 1977.43 Of Hoover's tenure in office, The Daily Breeze reported in 1992 that she "was a key player in Santa Monica in an era when growth was an honorable goal and rent control was not even being whispered. She broke ground as the first woman mayor of the city and the second woman to be elected to the City Council, on which she served 14 years. When she retired from office in 1975, Hoover was celebrated as the `Citizen of the Year,' `Woman of the Year,' and received numerous accolades from philanthropic and Republican organizations."44 During her last two years on the council when she served as mayor, Hoover was joined by newly elected councilmember Donna Swink who Clo Hoover had endorsed in the 1973 election.45 Subsequently, other women elected to the council included Christine Reed in 1975, Ruth Yannatta Goldway in 1979, Delores M. Press in 1983, and Judy Abdo in 1988. In fact, just four years after Hoover retired from. office, three women would serve simultaneously as councilmembers of the seven-member body (Reed, Swink, and Goldway). Person(s) of Historical Importance Identified in directories as. the Ocean Avenue Apartments, the subject property was commissioned by the 301 Ocean Avenue Corporation, an entity whose principals were Chester A. and Clo Hoover. The Hoovers, residents of Pacific Palisades at the time, relocated to a top floor suite of the subject property upon the building's completion in 1952. Mr. Hoover resided in the apartment complex with his wife until his death in 1965; Clo Hoover continued to occupy a unit in the complex until her death in 1997 at the age of 90. Running on the platform of opposition to offshore oil drilling and despite a lack of support .from the leading local newspaper -reputedly on account of her gender - Clo Hoover won the first of four elections to the Santa Monica city council where she would serve for 14 consecutive years. During that time she championed causes that were often popular with the public but went against the prevailing sympathies of the council. These causes included her opposition to an offshore causeway, construction of an island in Santa Monica Bay, .and the demolition of the Santa Monica and Newcomb Piers. She also was identified with efforts to reduce jet noise at the Santa Monica Airport. It is perhaps for these reasons as well as her being a woman that her council colleagues bypassed Hoover for the post of mayor until the last two years of her final teen. Nonetheless, once elected mayor, Hoover was celebrated for being the first woman in the city's history to hold that title. Determining Historic Significance of Elected Officials Most elected officials, including mayors, do not accumulate a lifetime record of public achievements sufficient to reach the threshold necessary for official recognition. The City's Ordinance related to historic personages (Criterion 9:36.100(a)(3)) does not provide guidance in assessing the level of importance of an individual: For assistance in a case such as this, it is generally accepted professional practice in historic preservation to rely on the National Register's guidance for evaluating eligibility, upon which local evaluation criteria are ultimately based. In this case, Criterion B of the National Register relates to properties that "are associated with the lives of 43 "Clo Hoover dies; was a longtime SM civic leader, "Santa Monica Evening Oz~tlook. June 27, 1997. "'~ .Daily Breeze. "History in the Taping. "June 21, 1992. p. BI. 45 Santa Monica Evenin¢ Outlook "Hoover Gets SMMayor Post. "April I8, 1973, p. 1. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 14 persons significant in our past."46 According to the National Register, a property is eligible for landmark designation under this criterion as long as it is "associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance [emphasis theirs)."47 Furthermore, "The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group.>,aa Careers of City of Santa Monica Mayors For research purposes, the relative importance of Clo Hoover's contributions to Santa Monica was compared with other individuals who also served as mayor. In 1946 Santa Monica adopted a new City Charter with a Council-Manager form of government and seven councilmembers, with one member serving as the largely honorary mayor. Prior to 1946, three Trustees governed the City with responsibility for public works, finance, and public safety one of whom was also selected as mayor. Like today, this was an honorary title. From 1946 until 1988, 21 councilmembers served as mayor and 34 councilmembers did not. Fifteen of the City's mayors who served between 1946 and 1988 are deceased, including Clo Hoover. Of these 15, Hoover served from 1961 until the end of her term in 1975 for a total of 14 years. Thomas M. McCarthy also served 14 years. Ben A. Bernard who served for 13 years with the final two as mayor, died in office. Christine E. Reed, first elected in 1979, left office following the end of her term in 1990 for a total of 16 years, the longest among the group. The following career summaries were compiled primarily from newspaper research spanning the years 1946-2007. Russell K. Hart (1899-19671°4-9- Twice mayor; chairman of citizens' committee that supported the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium (between terms on the council); president of Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce in 1940s, also named life member in recognition of 50 years' continuous membership; president of the Santa Monica Rotary Club; YMCA director and president; member of the Salvation Army advisory board; member of Santa Monica Library Board; given Hatch award from Trinity Baptist Church for outstanding contribution to moral and spiritual betterment of the community. In 1967, following his death, the Santa Monica Public Library named its auditorium the Russell K. Hart Auditorium for his long time service as a Library Board member.so Summary: Although Mr. Hart was recognized during his life for his prominent association with local service organizations and the public library he does not appear to have been identified with important civic issues during his years of elective office. as National Park Service. National Reeister Bulletin 1 S: How to Apnly the National Reeister Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: US. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. p. 1 S. a' Ibid as Ibid. a9 Santa Monica Evening Outlook. "Russell Hart Dies; Former SMMayor. "July $ 1967, pp. 1 and 2. so Los Angeles Ttmes. "Ex-Mayor Honored "Az+gust 13, 1967, p. WS2. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 15 Thomas M. McCarthy (1905-19771'1 As a pharmacist he operated a chain of drugstores throughout the Santa Monica Bay Area; led drives to raise funds for muscular dystrophy and to fund education in the city; commended for his service by the California Assembly in 1963; named "Citizen of the Year" by the Santa Monica Bay District Board of Realtors in 1963. Summary: Mr. McCarthy does not appear to stand out among his mayoral peers for being associated with important civic issues during his years of elective office. Beniamin A. Barnard (1904-1960)52 Benjamin Barnard attended UCLA where he graduated in 1926, earning a teaching credential from UC Berkeley in 1928, and a master's degree in Political Science from USC in 1933. From 1929 until his death, Barnard taught in Santa Monica's public schools. After teaching at Lincoln Junior High School and Santa Monica High School, Barnard joined the faculty of Santa Monica College in 1933. He continued teaching there after WWII. Mr. Barnard was frequently honored for his work as a teacher.'3 Barnard helped draft Santa Monica's new charter that was adopted in 1946 and was elected to the new council in 1947, serving 10 years, the last two of which as mayor (1955- 1957). After a two year hiatus, Barnard was again elected to the council in 1959, immediately being selected mayor by his council colleagues. However, in 1960, Barnard died unexpectedly while in office. Following his death, Barnard was eulogized by many for his status as a highly respected educator and popular elected official. Summary: Evidence suggests that Mr. Barnard was an exceptionally well-respected member of the community and a highly popular local politician. There appears to be some evidence of important contributions to Santa Monica necessary for identifying Barnard as a potentially significant personage in local history for his educational contributions as well as his role in local politics. The Speedway, located along the ocean in South Beach, was renamed Barnard Way in his honor. Anthony L. Dituri (1914-19731'4 President of Santa Monica Bay District Board of Realtors and posthumously given "Citizen of the Year" award by the organization in 1973; director of the Santa Monica Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews; chairman of Christmas Seal Campaign for the western region; a member of the Chamber of Commerce, the Red Cross board, Kiwanis Club, the Elks Lodge, American Legion Veterans Service League; was closely associated with the Ocean Park Redevelopment Project.ss Mr. Dituri was part of the Council majority that voted to demolish the Santa Monica Piers, an unpopular position that led to the replacement of three of his colleagues in the April 1973 elections. He died in office soon after. Summary: Mr. Dituri does not appear to stand out among his mayoral peers for being associated with important civic issues during his years of elective office. si Santa Monica Evenine Outlook "T.M McCarthy, former Mayor ofSM dies. "February 17, 1977, p. S. sz Santa Monica Evening Outlook. "Mayor Barnard Mourned "July 13, 1960, p. 2. 53 Santa Monica Evening Outlook. "Mayor Barnard Dies of Stroke. "July 13, 1960, pp. 1 and 2. 54 Santa Monica Evening Outlook "Late SMMayor Honored "December 1 Q 1973, pp. 9 and 11. 'S Santa Monica Evening Outlook. "Dituri Rosary, Mass Scheduled. "October 3, 1973, p. 6. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 16 Vireil B. Kingsley (1911-19881st Chairman of Santa Monica funeral firm Gates Kingsley; member of Santa Monica Elks, Kiwanis, Salvation Army, Boys Club; elected mayor Apri120,1971 and resigned from public office six days later on April 26 following a heart attack. Founding president of the Los Angeles County Funeral Directors Association, member of state Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, chairman of the Los Angeles County Coroner's Association. In 1984, received the Humanitarian Award by the National Conference of Christians and Jews for his civic service. Summary: Mr. Kingsley does not appear to stand out among his mayoral peers for being associated with important civic issues during his years of elective office. Donna O'Brien Swink (1927-1980)57 First elected in 1973 on a platform to save the Newcomb and Santa Monica Piers; senior vice president of Santa Monica Bank; supporter of Girls Club of Santa Monica (a new clubhouse was named in Swink's honor following her death in 1980); foe of rent control; lost mayoral post when a new council majority backed by renters rights advocates was elected in April 1979. Resigned from office on September 11, 1979 due to complications from cancer. Summary: Donna Swink was initially identified with the fight to save the Newcomb and Santa Monica piers having been endorsed by Clo Hoover - a key supporter of the piers - in the 1973 election that brought Swink to office. In the late 1970s, however, Swink was on the losing side of the renters' rights battles whose advocates gained a council majority after 1979. As a result, it does not appear that Swink's support of the City's piers and her fight against rent control constitute sufficient evidence of important contributions to Santa Monica necessary for identifying her as a significant personage. Ken Edwards (1941-198515$- Primarily associated with Santa Mohicans for Renters Rights political as a strong supporter of rent control; first elected in 1981, reelected in 1984, and died in office of cancer (8/17/85). Summary: Despite Edwards' prominence in the renters rights political movement the evidence does not support a conclusion of notability given the brief time that he was a councilmember and mayor. Nonetheless, following his death, the Ken Edwards Community Center was named in his honor. Christine Emerson Reed (1944-1996)59 First elected in 1975 on a platform to save the Newcomb and Santa Monica Piers; was later strongly identified for saving the piers; foe of rent control and Santa Mohicans for Renters Rights; was especially known for her ability to work with council opponents. When she died in 1996, Reed had been the City's longest serving councilmember. She was first elected in 1975 and left office 16 years later in 1990. (Since that time, three councihnembers have equaled or exceeded Reed's '6 Santa Monica Evenin¢ Outlook "Kingsley Remembered as Active Civic Leader. "November 29, 1988, p. A3. n Los Ani?eles Times. "Final Rites Held for Donna Swink. "September 25, 1980, p. YT~S4. 58 Santa Monica Evenin¢ Outlook. "SMMourns Passing of Spirited Leader. "September 9, 1985, pp. Al and A5. es Santa Monica Evenine Outlook. "1, 000 Pay Tribute to Ex-Mayor. " Apri13Q 1996, pp. AI and A4. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 17 years in office. As of 2008, Ken Genser for 20 years, Robert Holbrook for 18 years, and Herb Katz for 16 years). Following Reed's death, Lincoln Park was renamed Christine Emerson Reed Park. In addition, a large curving concrete monument honoring Reed was installed at the northwest corner of the park in 2000. Summary.• Preliminary research suggests that Christine Reed's 16 years of service, which included her successful effort to save the Santa Monica piers and a reputation for building bridges with her opponents, constitutes some evidence of important contributions to Santa Monica necessary for identifying her as a potentially significant personage. She was duly recognized by the City with a monument and the renaming of Lincoln Park in her honor. Summary Based upon the comparative research of former City mayors summarized above, it appears that Ben Barnard, Clo Hoover, and Christine Reed have achieved sufficient importance during their tenure as elected officials. All three were especially long-serving councilmembers who were eulogized after their deaths in the local press -more so than the other mayors. In particular, Hoover and Reed were associated with a number of key issues that the City faced during their terms in office. Hoover was identified with offshore oil drilling, the proposed Santa Monica causeway, jet aircraft at Santa Monica Airport, the proposed Santa Monica Bay Island, and the Newcomb and Santa Monica Piers. In addition, Hoover is particularly known for her role as the lone woman councihnember during 12 of her 14 years in office, the final two as the City's first woman mayor. Christine Reed was a leading activist in struggle to save the Santa Monica Piers and as a foe of rent control yet was highly praised for her ability to work successfully with the opposition during some of the most contentious years in the City's history. Barnard, while not identified with any specific local issues appears to have been a particularly popular mayor and important member of the community. Following their deaths, three former mayors were honored by the City. Lincoln Park was renamed Christine Emerson Reed Park and a monument was erected there in her honor; the Speedway was renamed Barnard Way in .commemoration of Ben Barnard; and Ken Edwards Community Center was named after the former mayor. It appears that Clo Hoover's productive life, which included being Santa Monica's second woman coancilmember and the first woman mayor, meets the threshold of significance to be considered an historic personage in the history of Santa Monica. Hoover's significant achievements as the second and lone woman councilmember for 12 of her 14 years and as the first woman mayor, helped end discriminatory practices against woman wanting to serve their community through public office. Furthermore, Hoover was known for her advocacy for women in public office, which she often lectured about during her years as an elected official. Thus the combination of Hoover's success as a woman in government and her advocacy for ending discrimination against woman serving in government makes Hoover an individually significant personage associated with the movement for political rights for women. However, Hoover's voting record as the minority opinion on issues including the proposed Causeway along the coast, the demolition of the Santa Monica and Newcomb piers, regulating the use of large planes at the Santa Monica Airport, and other issues does not rise to the threshold of individual historic significance. Her votes were cast in her role as an elected official, and voting for or against important issues is the expected activity for City of Santa Monica councihnembers. Although Hoover's votes on the above issues were in the minority, it appears that Hoover's connection to the issues was limited to her vote and vocal support for her political position on the issues as a councilmember. Unlike her advocacy on behalf of the right for 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 18 women in public office, Hoover was not involved in the above issues as a private citizen and there is no clear connection to them other than her voting record. Clo Hoover and 30l Oceare Avenue In determining whether 301 Ocean Avenue is associated with Clo Hoover's important contributions to Santa Monica, it is helpful to refer to the National Register's discussion of eligibility under Criterion B (association with the lives of persons significant in our past). The National Register specifically states that "the residence of a doctor, a mayor, or a merchant is eligible under Criterion B if the person was significant in the field of medicine, politics, or commerce, respectively.i60 Specifically, "properties eligible for designation under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.i61 According to National Register Bulletin 32, a residence of someone determined individually significant is eligible for National Register designation if the property represents the. significant accomplishments of a significant individual while they lived in the residence.62 The example given in Bulletin 32 for a residence that represents an individual's significant accomplishments is a farm owned by early twentieth-century Illinois politician, Henry T, Rainey, known as a champion for the American farmer and American agriculture.63 The residence on the farm was deternned eligible for the National Register under Criterion B because "The documentation shows the importance of the farm in understanding Rainey's significance by explaining both how operation of the farm gave Rainey useful perspective on farm issues and influences in his actions in Congress, and how his operation of the farm contributed to local and state agricultural practices.i64 The connection between the productive life of Rainey and the residence is clear as the residence represents Rainey's significant accomplishments as a politician who advocated for farmers and agriculture. Clo Hoover resided at the subject property for 45 years -from the time she moved to Santa Monica in 1952 until her death in 1997. 301 Ocean Avenue was constructed for and owned by the Hoovers as their permanent residence, and it was along-term source of family income. Although the subject property is directly connected to Clo Hoover as her primary residence, the property is not historically associated with her .productive life as a civil servant. The property has no direct connection to the significant events associated with her productive life as a Councilmember, Mayor, or advocate for woman serving in public offices. The multifamily dwelling did not directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her votes against the causeway, against allowing jets at the Santa Monica Airport, or for her support for preserving the Santa Monica and Newcomb piers. Nor did the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her historic role as the second woman councilmember in-Santa Monica, her historic nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for woman in public office. Furthermore, the architecture and design of 301 Ocean Avenue, does not directly represent the political ideas of Clo Hoover. Therefore, the subject property is not associated with productive life of Clo Hoover. so - Nafional Park Service, National Register Bulletin I5: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. p. 1 S. 61 Ibid ez National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Doczrmenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Washington DC: US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, p. 18. es Ibkl p. 19. ea Ibid 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Repoli page 19 The property most directly associated with Clo Hoover's years as a public official is the Mayor's office in City Hall and the Council Chambers. In City Hall Hoover served as the second woman councilmember and honorary mayor. City Hall is a designated City Landmazk and has been determined to be eligible for the National Register. Other residents of 301 Ocean Avenue City directories reveal little about the occupations of the majority of the individuals who resided at the subject property during the 1950s and early 1960s (See Table 2, City Directory Research). Of the available information; it appears that the apartment complex housed primarily white collar workers including an attorney, a supervisor for the Union Oil Company, salesmen, dentists, an office secretary, and an executive of a plastics company. The property was also the residence of widows and retirees. ' In addition to Clo Hoover, current research identified only one property occupant who might be considered potentially significant, Wesley S. Griswold, who appears in the 1958-59 and 1960-61 city directories at the subject address. Wesley Southmayd Griswold. (1909-1996) was a feature writer and editor for the Hartford Courant (1930-41), a publicist for the Travelers Insurance Company (1941-42), a copy editor for The New Yorker (1946-51) and a copy editor (1945-46) and West Coast editor (beginning in 1951) for Popular Science Monthly.65 He was also the author ofA Work of Giants, a history of the American transcontinental railroad published in 1963. While cognizant of these achievements, it does not appear that Mr. Griswold's contributions rise to a level necessary to meet local criteria for recognition as a historic personage in the City of Santa Monica. Similarly, none of the other occupants appear to qualify as historic personages based upon the same criteria. Statement of Other Significance No other evidence was discovered in current research of the property to indicate other significance. Is the property representative of a style in the City this is no longer prevalent? The subject property is a typical example of a post-war multi-family residence or apartment complex similar to many others constructed throughout Southern California and within the City of Santa Monica during the 1950s which incorporate common Modern design features and reflect the regional popularity of garden court apartments during this period. In reviewing the City's Historic Resources Inventory and having conducted a windshield survey of the neighborhoods. within the vicinity of San Vicente Boulevard and also along Montana Avenue it appears that there are equally good if not better examples of post-war multi-family apartment buildings that are similaz to the subject property. In comparison with the other examples, the subject property appeazs to be one of many similar properties that remain relatively prevalent in Santa Monica. 6' Online Archive ofCatifornba.www.oac.cdlib.org: 301gcean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 20 Does the property contribute to a potential historic district? The subject property was originally surveyed in 1983 during phase 1 of the citywide survey. A potential historic district, comprised of courtyard apartments, was located between 7th Street and Ocean Avenue along San Vicente Boulevard. The subject property was determined ineligible as either a contributor to the proposed district or as an individually eligible resource. The subject property was surveyed again during the Historic Resources Inventory Update: North of Montana Area 2001-2002, and found ineligible for listing as a historic resource as either a contributor to the proposed historic district or as an individually eligible. Preliminary fmdings of the 2007-2008 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update indicated that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a potential "San Vicente Boulevard MFR District" (a SD3 status code). Based on a Windshield survey of the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District, it appears that San Vicente Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 7th Street is the location of 45 multi-family properties erected between 1937 and 1996 with the majority having been built in the 1950s. Of these 45 properties, 24 of them -constructed between 1937 and 1958 - appear to contribute to a potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence (MFR) District with the remaining 21 identified as non-contributors. Together the 24 contributing MFRS along San Vicente Boulevard constitute a significant concentration of associated historical resources that appear fo qualify as a viable historic district in the City of Santa Monica. The contributing residences are located on both sides of San Vicente Boulevard with rear lot lines often abutting large single-family residences on both sides of the thoroughfare. Contributing properties are two stories in height; rectangular, L, or U-shaped in plan; have rear parking garages or carports; and large central courtyards with mature landscaping. Non-contributing properties situated within the district's boundaries exhibit substantially compromised physical integrity or a construction date outside the district's 1937-1958 period of significance. The district's boundaries contain a historically and architecturally consistent grouping of multi-family residences erected during the middle years of the 20th century that embody the response to growing population pressures in Santa Monica during that time period. With regard to the integrity of the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District, since the 1950s, the district has changed somewhat with the replacement of a number of apartment buildings with multi-story condominium complexes, particularly properties situated on the south side of San Vicente Boulevard between 4th and 7th Streets within the district's boundaries. In addition, a number of multi-family dwellings that might have been district contributors have experienced substantial alterations to their primary elevations. Nonetheless,. the encroachment of newer buildings and alterations to others does not appear to have compromised the overall physical or historical integrity of the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District, which remains high. As discussed above, Building A has been substantially modified from its original appearance, the apartment complex was built in stages. Overall it minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi-family residential architecture. It does have a central courtyard and some basic elements of Modern design and construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification as a Garden Apartment. The apartment complex lacks unity of design, its integrity has been compromised, it City Landmark Assessment Report page 21 does not embody Garden Apartment architecture, and it is a common example of a post-war multi- family apartment complex. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible as a contributor to the potential courtyard district. Conclusion In summary, based on current research and the above assessment, the property located at 301 Ocean Avenue does not appear to meet any of the City of Santa Monica's Landmark criteria. The property was evaluated according to statutory criteria as follows: Lanzmark Criteria 9.36.100(a)(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject property is a typical and unremarkable example of post-war multi-family residential architecture, amulti-family housing type that was popular in Santa Monica from the years following World War II through the early 1960s. The property's Building A, designed by architect Joe M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials has been compromised. The property was built in stages, lacks unity of design and minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi-family residential architecture. Furthermore, it is not a Garden Apartment and therefore does not contribute to the potential San. Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District. It does have a central courtyard and' some basic elements of Modern design and construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification as a Garden Apartment. The apartment complex was developed by Mr. and Mrs. Hoover as income property and the penthouse apartment was the Hoover's primary residence during the period of Clo Hoover's productive life as a City Councilmember and Mayor, but the subject property is not emblematic of the economic, political or architectural history of the City or of Clo Hoover's tenure as a city councilmember or as mayor. Furthermore, the property does not have significant cultural or social associations. For these reasons the subject property does not appear to exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this criterion. 9.36.100(a)(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property does not appear to meet this criterion. As a typical example of a post- war multi-family residence, the building lacks sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for designation. 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 22 9.36.100(a)(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject property was the longtime residence of Clo Hoover who, as the second woman to serve as a councilmember and the City's first woman mayor, was a role model and an advocate for increasing the role of women in city government. Hoover was consistently recognized for her decades of service to Santa Monica, particularly as a woman in a political environment dominated by men. Nonetheless, even given the significance of Clo Hoover as an important personage associated with the movement for political rights for women in Santa Monica's history it does not appear that the subject property -occupied by owner/resident Clo Hoover during the many years of her significant contributions to the City -would be eligible for local Landmark designation for its identification with a historic personage. The subject property does not convey or embody her ideals or symbolize her accomplishments in furthering the role of women or physically represent her contributions as a public official. The property has no direct connection to the significant events associated with her productive life as a Councilmember, Mayor, or advocate for. woman serving in public- offices. The multifamily dwelling did not directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her votes against the causeway, against allowing jets at the Santa Monica Airport, or for her support for preserving the Santa Monica and Newcomb piers. Nor did the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her historic role as the second woman councihnember in Santa Monica, her historic nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for woman in public office. Furthermore, the architecture and design of 301 Ocean Avenue, does not directly represent the political ideas of Clo Hoover. Therefore, the subject property is not clearly associated with productive life of Clo Hoover. There are other properties in Santa Monica that better represent -her significant contributions to the City.. The property most directly associated with her tenure as a public official is Santa Monica City Hall, including the Mayor's office and the City Council Chamber. The City Hall is a designated local Landmark and has been determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, the unencumbered views of Santa Monica Bay can be considered a part of her enduring legacy and those of many others who have contributed to the conservation of this natural resource. Furthermore, there are no private homes belonging to mayors in Santa Monica that have been designated landmarks for their association with a significant personage. 9.36.100(a)(4) It embodies distingz~ishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study ofa period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The subject property is a typical example of a post-war multi-family residential complex erected in the Palisades Tract along San Vicente Boulevard and other major corridors in Santa Monica during the post-war period. The subject property incorporates the massing, low-pitched roof, overhanging eaves, stucco finish, metal-framed sliding and/or casement fenestration, cantilevered balconies and walkways, and general lack of applied ornamentation commonly associated with post-war residential architecture. The property's Building A, designed by architect Joe M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 23 of design, workmanship, and materials has been compromised. The property was built in stages; lacks unity of design and minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi-family residential architecture. The subject property is adjacent to the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District which , is comprised of good representative examples of Garden Apartments. However, the subject property does not embody the distinguishing characteristics of the Garden Apartment type and does not meet the eligibility requirements for eligibility as a contributor to the potential courtyard apartment district. The primary feature of the Garden Apartment is the semi-public courtyard that is either open to the front yard or entered through a central covered entranceway. While it appears that the apartment complex does have an open court with a pool and landscaping surrounded by multi-family housing on three sides, the subject property does not embody the character defining features of the Garden Apartment type. Most notably, 301 Ocean Avenue is laid out on the periphery of the irregular lot, not setback. On the San Vicente facing elevation, the exterior of the building is just a few feet from the property line maximizing the units on the lot and creating a private interior courtyard separated from the street. The entrance to the courtyard from San Vicente is along a narrow paved walkway through a small gap between Building A and the driveway leading to the subterranean parking which is adjacent to the northeast edge of Building B. 301 Ocean Avenue with its private courtyard surrounded by buildings on all three sides, does not embody the key features of the Garden Apartment type. The subject property is a common, undistinguished example of a post-war multi-family residential complex that was. built in stages. The property's Building A has been substantially altered and no longer retains the integrity of Joseph M. Estep's original design. The apartment complex incorporates typical features associated with post-war residential architecture but is not a distinguished or outstanding example of its type and lacks unity of design. Furthermore, the property does not embody the distinguishing character defming features of the Garden Apartment type and is not eligible as a potential contributor to the San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District. Therefore the property does not appear to meet this criterion. 9.36.100(a)(S) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. The original architect of the property's Building A, Joe M. Estep, was a locally important architect practicing in Santa Monica. However, the original design. for Building A was thoroughly compromised when the building was substantially altered in 1958. As a result, the property is not a significant or representative example of Estep's work and does not appear to meet this criterion. 3UI Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 24 9.36.100(a) (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature ofa neighborhood, community or the City. The subject property is located on the curve where San Vicente Boulevard meets Ocean Avenue opposite Palisades Park, but its location on a corner lot is not unique. The curved elevation of the property's Building B, which hugs the perimeter of the property near the sidewalk, and the building's relative prominence as viewed while driving along Ocean Avenue or walking the promenade in Palisades Park do not qualify the property as an established visual features of the neighborhood. The curved design is not a singular physical characteristic but is largely a function of the pie-shaped parcel upon which the property is situated. In all likelihood the apartment complex was designed to accommodate the greatest number of units with the available ocean views. Its relative visual prominence is primarily due to its location on the corner of San Vicente and Ocean Park rather than the building's design. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to meet this criterion. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 25 CIT Y DIRECTOR Y RESEAR CH 301 Ocean Avenue APN.• 4293-003-021 Year Entry 1952 - 1953 No listing. 1954 Ocean Avenue Apartments 1. Hoover, Chester A. 2. Reachi, Maria Mrs. (widow Antonie) 3. Goodwin, R.T. 4. Halpern, Lily Mrs. 5. Chaba, Paul 6. Weum, Evelyn J. Mrs. (widow Thurston) 7. Tawes, George V. (Ruth) 8. Hinton, Elizabeth Mrs. 9. Myers, Bette J, underwriter U.S. Aviation Ins. (L.A.) 10. Walker, Howard A. 11. Radeck, Minnie B. 12. Gillingham, George F. 13. Breinig, John H. 14. Kilman, Augusta M. 15. Vacant 16. Vacant 17. Vacant 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 26 Year Entry 1958-1959 Ocean Avenue Apartments 1. Wackerbarth, Henry O. (Reba), attorney (L.A.) 2. `Jennings, A. Homer (Eliz. W), Malibu Lumber 3. Willman, Arthur G. (Mable), retired 4. Elmendorff, Charles H. S. Hunt, J.D. (Janet) 6. Weaver, Paul E. Jr. (Margaret), Weaver Publishing Co. 7. Povah, Derek S. (Carrine C.), Dept. Supervisor Union Oil Co. 8. Dworak, John L. _ 9. Mitchell, Elbert P. 10. Swan, J.H. 11. Stocker, Karl H. 12. Lucas, Herbert A. (Kathleen E.), salesman, Linder Bros. Ina 12a. January, John W. (Emilie), dentist 14. Marshall, Emilie M. 1 S. Reed, Thelma M. Mrs. 16. Westbrook, Richard M., North Marina Boat & Supply 17. Hoover, Chester A. (Clo), Ocean Avenue Apts. 18. Harding, James A. 19. Schauer, Patrick 20. Mount, S.R. 21. Wimberley, Jack E. 22. Petty, F. Fern, dentist (Beverly Hills) 23. Gilman, Don L., attorney 24.. Hinton, Elizabeth R. Mrs. 2S: Baker, John C., vice president/secretary Plastiflex Co. 26. Gladd, Frithie G. Mrs., office secretary Veterans Admin. 27. Halpern, Lily Mrs. 28. Gerlofl; Martin (Renate) 29. Griswold, Wesley S., West Coast Editor Popular Science Monthly 30. Radeck, Minnie B. Mrs 31. Schultz, Theo J. 32. Grnenberg, Ivor J. 33. Chapman, James F. 34. Hoover, Charles A. Jr. 35. Piersol, T.R. 36. Szymanski, C.J. 37. Weum, Evel n Z. Mrs. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Repor[ page 27 Year Entry 1960-1961 Ocean Avenue Apartments L Alcorn, F.B. - 2. Jennings, A.H. 3. Lucas, M.A. 4. Syvertsen, R.K. 5. Swan, A. 6. Wilson, H.E. 7. Haggar, Jean 8. Shanks, H.G. 9. Nobles, J.K. 10. Hinton, E.R: 11. Koch, G.F. 12. Carter, V.M. 13. Povah, D.S. 14. Dodge, W. 15. Baker, W.H. 16. McCready, A.W: 17. Elmendorf, C.M. 18. Greig, J. 19. Mountain, M. 20. Schauer, P. 21. Stocker, K.M. 22. Hechler, H.P. 23. Pettz, F.F. 24. Grisdale, C.J. 25. Mitchell, E.P. 26. Marshall, E. 27. Wimberley, J.E. 28. Griswold, Wesley 29. Willman, A.G. 30. Juneman, M.M. 31. Chapman, J.F. 32. Bordenave, R. 33. Cope, D.W. 34. Bedell, H. 35. Porter, W.A. 36. Hoover, C.A. Sr.. 37. Rysman, C.H. 38. Umphrey, W. 39. Breyley, J. 40. Decenek, A. 41. January, J.W. 42. Lesser, Robert M. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report Page 28 Santa Monica Mayors (1946-1988) Mayors Years of Public Service Mark T. Gates 4 Russell K. Hart 8 ('49-'S3 & 'S5-'S9) Thomas J. McDermott 4 Ben A. Barnard 13 (Died in office) Wellman B. Mills 8 Thomas M. McCarthy 14 Samuel C. Brown 2 Rex H. Minter 12 Herbert A. Spurgin 6 Virgil B. Kingsley 4 Anthony L. Dituri 7 (Died in office) Clo Hoover 14 Nathaniel Trives 8 Donna O'Brien Swink 7 Peter Van den Steenhoven 8 John J. Bambrick 4 Ruth Yannatta Goldway 4 Ken Edwards 4 (Died in office) Christine E. Reed 16 James P. Conn 8 Dennis Zane 8 Note: Deceased in bold. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 29 Councilmembers not serving as Mayors (1946-1988) Jack J. Guercio H. George Markworth George A. Neilson T. Lee Schimmer, Jr. Edwin Talmage Cecil S. Dickinson James L. Grubbs Louis E. Mahoney Fred M. Judson Alys M. Drobnick Ralph S. Frantz William G. Thornbury John M. Bohn Martin Goodfriend Howard B. Hamilton Kenneth Wamsley Wendell Corey James B. Reidy, Jr. Royal M. Sorenson John W. McCloskey Lowell T. Patton Robert Gabriel Arthur L. Rinck Hilliard Lawson Seymour A. Cohen John J. Bamrick Perry Scott William H. Jennings Cheryl D. Rhoden Delores M. Press David G. Epstein Herb Katz Alan S. Katz David Finkel 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay -The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas-West Publishers, 1974. Byers, Charles Alma. "New Idea in Apartments. " Technical World, Vol. 16, (February 1912). Carroll, Susan J. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Second Edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. Chase, Laura "Eden in the Orange Groves: Bungalows & Courtyard Houses of Los Angeles. " Landscape, Vol. 2.i, No. 3. City of Santa Monica. Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: 2007-2008. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., August 2008. City of Santa Monica. City Council Minutes. April 18, 1961; April 16, 1963; Apri120, 1965; May 11,.1965; March 14, 1967; March 28, 1967; April 11, 1967; April 18, 1967; September 12, 1967; April 15, 1969; Apri120, 1971; January 9, 1973; January 23, 1973; February 13, 1973; February 27, 1973; March 13, 1973; March 27, 1973; April 10, 1973; April 17, 1973; Apri124, 1973; April 9, 1974; Apri123, 1974; April 15,1975. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department. Building Permits. Clark, Judith Freeman. Almanac ofAmerican Women in the 20`h Century. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1987. Clo Hoover biographical form. Submitted March 2; 1961, to the Santa Monica Public Library. Cott, Nancy F. editor. No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Daily Breeze, "History in the Taping." June 21, 1992. p. BL Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith Books, 2003. Felder, Deborah G. A Century of Women: the Most Influential Events in Twentieth-Century Women's History. Secaucus, New Jersey: Birch Lane Press, 1999. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll's Century History.• Santa Monica Bay Cities. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Jensen, Joan M. and Gloria Ricci Lothrop. California Women: A History. Sacramento, California: Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, 1987. Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Information Records. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 31 LosAngeZes Times, "Miss Wiener Had Expected Vote Victory." May 28, 1953. p. 2. Los Angeles Times, "Causeway Across Bay Envisioned." May 25, 1958. Los Angeles Times, "State Commission to See Causeway Plans." October 22, 1961. Los Angeles Times, "Councilmember to Give Talk." May 11, 1961. p. G10. Los Angeles Times, ``Causeway Unit Plans First Meeting." June 20, 1963. Los Angeles Times, "Causeway Support Unit Organized." July 12, 1964. Los Angeles Times, "Beach Areas Aroused Over Freeway Issues." September 3, 1964. Los Angeles Times, "City, County Talks Due on Causeway." January 3, 1965. Los Angeles Times, "S.M. Chamber Expects Battle Over Causeway." May 6, 1965. Los Angeles Times, "Governor Sent 10,000 Protests on Causeway." June 27, 1965. p. WS 16. Los Angeles Times, "Causeway Plan Appears Dead Because of Veto." August 1, 1965. p. WS2. Los Angeles Times, "Ex-Mayor Honored." August 13, 1967, p. WS2. Los Angeles Times, "Commission Ended." November 12, 1967. Los Angeles Times, "Council Votes Not to Join Plans for Causeway on Coast." May 3, 1968. Los Angeles Times, "Clo Hoover: Tough but Fair Legislator." April 5, 1973. p. WS1. Los Angeles Times, "SM Airport Future Not aFly-by-Night Issue." June 2, 1974, p. WS 1. Los Angeles Times, "Final Rites Held for Donna Swink." September 25, 1980. p. WS4. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990. McGuigan, Mark. "The Road in the Sea, Part I: Dreaming Big." The Santa Monica Lookout, September 1993. . "The Road in the Sea, Part III: Swept Away." The Santa Monica Lookout, September 1993. "The Road in the Sea, Part IV: The Dream Sinks." The Santa Monica Lookout, September 1993. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin I5.• How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Aeport page 32 National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Online Archive of California. www.oao.cdlib.org. Polk. Polk's Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles, (various years). Robinson, W.W. Santa Monica: A Calendar of Events in the Making of a City. California Title Insurance and Trust Company, 1959. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory: Final Report. Prepared by Johnson Neumann Research Associates for the City of Santa Monica, 1985-1986. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index. Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives. Santa Monica Mirror, "A Former Mayor Looks Back: James Conn." July 13-19, 2006. p. 9. Santa Monica Mirror, "Rex Minter: A Former Mayor Looks Back." August 3-9, 2006. pp. 1 and 8. Santa Monica Mirror, "Nat Trives: A Former Mayor Looks Back." January 25-31, 2007. p. 6. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Bay Group Honors Clo Hoover." February 10, 1956. p. 13: Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "SM Mayor Barnard Dies at 56." July 12, 1960. p. 1. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Mayor Barnard Dies of Stroke."July 13, 1960. pp. 1 and 2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Mayor Barnard Mourned: Most Popular Man in SM." July 13, 1960. p. 2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Clo Credits Women for Her Election." Apr. 12, 1961. pp. 1 and 11. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Clo Hoover Causeway View Told." May 13, 1965. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Russell Hart Dies; Former SM Mayor." July 8, 1967. pp. 1 and 2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "C1o Hoover to Retire in 2 Years." June 17, 1969. p. 17. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Hoover Gets SM Mayor Post." April 18, 1973, p. 1. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "SM Businesswomen Honor Mayor Hoover." July 13, 1973, pp. 1 and 3. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report paee 33 Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Dituri Rosary, Mass Scheduled." October 3, 1973, p. 6. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Late SM Mayor Honored." December 10, 1973. pp. 9 and 11. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Mrs. Hoover Deserves Support." April 8, 1974. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "T.M. McCarthy, Former Mayor of SM, Dies." March 7, 1977. p. 5. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "SM Mourns Passing of Spirited Leader." September 9, 1985. pp. Al and A4. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Kingsley Remembered as Active Civic Leader." November 29, 1988. p. A3. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Council Chooses Abdo as Mayor; She Seeks Unity." November 25, 1992. pp. Al and A4. Santa Monica Evening Ozrtlook, "1,000 Pay Tribute to Ex-Mayor." Apri130, 1996. pp. Al and A5. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Alys Drobnick, 1St SM councilwoman, civic leader, dies." January 4, 1997. pp. B 1 and B2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook, "Clo Hoover dies; was a longtime SM civic leader." June 27, 1997. p. L Stanton, Jeffrey W. Santa Monica Pier: A History from 1875 to 1990. Santa Monica: Donahue Publishing, 1990. Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874. Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. . Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Heumann, 1986. . Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase II: 1985-1986. Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1986. . Historic Resources Inventory Update: North of Montana Area 2001-2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, March 2002. . Historic Resources Inventory Update. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates, September 1995. . Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 34 Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944. Wuellner, Margarita and Jon Wilson. Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District Measure BB Program. Prepared for the Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District. Prepared by PCR Services Corporation, November 2008. 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 35 ATTACHMENTS Current Tax Assessor Map 1918 Sanborn Map 1950 Sanborn-Map Current Photographs 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 36 Assessor's Map 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report pale 37 1918 Sanborn Map 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report pale 38 1950 Sanborn Map 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 39 CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 40 Building A, west elevation, looking southeast. Building B, north elevation, looking east. .£ }~~. ~_ rvw: ~~ w ~~ ; ,. ~ ~ v 3... Y2 ~1 ~ 3 _ ~i 1 Y ........:w. _. ., A v, ,a..., he, v. M ,e _ g .fi Building B, north elevation, south. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 41 Building B, west and south elevations, looking northeast. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmazk Assessment Report page 42 --a -~ -~~• ~_~ •~~_~~~, auuicrranean parking entrance, looking west. ----~-=-s = _, =tea= ~oa5~) elevanon, tooking southwest. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report . page 43 Building A, window detail Building B, window detail. Interic south. 301 Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmark Assessment Report page 44 Building A on right, Building B on left, from interior courtyard, looking north. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 45 Building A, elevator vestibule facing interior courtyard. A7'TA~'Eld~'.S Carrrent Tax Assessor Map 1918 Sanborn Map 195© Sanborn Map Current Phatagraptzs 30t Ocean Avenue City [.andmark Assessmznt Report page 36 Assessor's IViap 30l Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 37 I The assessment of units to the foiloai ng condominium biagrammetic des icts e00ros lmate "/~%"'O"r O/OPB2o 4293 3 ! pl ans~ includes etl rights and iota rests in the common dimensiws. I 177 BI/304°3 q/pyB ~ SFIEEt t KALE 1" 100' areas is sat forth in tleads of mcatd. bantldviinf um Bommon Plan Reference Tree4 No.~Bik. Lob Unite Subdivision of Ai rs Pece 18488]8 IR-5-]B 33117 ~ I 1 Shee4~ T~645250~ 32576 _ _ - i I _ Shaet 3 228480 3_V-BI 138531 _ 1 ee i ~• /~t PT ~8I2T/80/ T901E5/06 0\~ 1 5' 2904<6HOP 1~ \~ a 0 O \ Z0,624s' 197 C \O 9 \ O O ~ NC"- P4PS0 \~ 3A ~ IIT~ ~. \ S . QV. 9119 \I 9O B M PJOv' b I° g. 107 °fi ~' ~- 00 7 d \\ tg9sp e' !/ y. ST - 07 11 \ ~ PP,/a'6a' io7 \2 ~ X 97 \\ ~ 1O 1 'aN lO Pycisv' 2 . IoS° \ ~ 6 C" o 5 23 P/, 3/Bv' ~ 10`/' ! O ~ g \ / o , \ \ w /9,880<' \ q O \ t'' '~ s ~ no °I ~ EE 105 l4 .gr9 ~ \ a y o O O ~ I P t N&o P/090~a' \\ °I 6 6/gyp ~6 O 6 ~ ' I 101 P ' 4 b 94 W ~ 0 {a/ge 5p 'i~ ' j0° \~ \'I r~~ 1° u ~ w~, ,RJB G~O~ /sNa-!'",~,.. \ /1 .101 Z 3 23 ors>o0e.' ~C9/a® r g' 0 a t2asot=' jp O N atl X9130 ~ N~ d~ 'ly ,bC~, 1'A CONDOMINIUM ~ CODE t$ Tap?I `s 'D TRACT N0.38531 __ _ ._ M. B: 973: 13 _ 14 86oa q}, Q.~ 4v CONDOMFNfUM 16 O~.d7 ~ ~ \. a° ~ \ P ~ TRACT N0.33_117- _ M. 8. 90_6-27-28 '1' ' 2 CT ~ g. $ pQ- F' THE PALISADES M. B. 8 - 32 FOR PREY. ASSMR SEE: 9L ~ G CONDOMINIUM . RSSESSOR'S MAP 67-a qh TRACT N0.32575 .. .. .. .. .. M.B. 908-61=62 .. .. .. .. COUNTY OF LDS-ANGELES, CALIF. 1918 Sanborn 10~1ap 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report pale 38 -~g} E O I ,v I ~ I I I FRD!{TING Ij ® ONY :K ; ADELRIgE ORI~ _. L y}~'"J-„ :pytxz' I i ~~ ~ I __ N Rr=-T----~--;==-r- ~= -r ~~~-T-~f ~- o 4 sMN VICENT ... _....~..m.. !al nv p. ............ ~. ?s ~ t ~ _ ,t~ 9~ ~ r E 5 { ~ I 9 0 (c 19s0 Sanborn Niap 30l Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report pace 39 IIII FTC ~ Y f `' ~ iNLryTIN6~ N "r,~i , H~~ w. ~ ON~~~ ~~ADEtAI E<!1"E If~'{" `~ ~_ I.. N - qn ~ 1 ' li i e a ~ Icy ~s. ~ I ~~ ~ _.. _ y ,. ~ IWWdI ~2e~i 11 LL~JJJ ----------_/.' `'rF ii i° 6'l'V'D * ++~~ SAN VICENTE ~----~_ k~'°. !o@ N.wwr _ ~- i~^ y- SAN VICEN E w 4 ~ ~' ^.11 '~~ ~ "° .}' :eta d -~ ~ ~ d .~I `~i~ ,e ~i~ p 's: ,:. ._ mss] ~ - C ~ ~' I E~ ~ r I I ~ .' A f: gl~yy~ t ~ r i I ~ ~ ~ F ,. n d °' g~ v`~ b S ~ ~ 2 ao, .~ "° ~ GEORGINA ® AV' ~ d - ~ a °~ - ~ .J.,. ,i~. . .~ W - - y ...;.m.• 9 ~ tY9 .' .~ - af: li u .~ a" :I Fl. ~- m MARGUERITA ~ AV. ... ~~ ~ ~~ ~Q F W M x' x« ~ ~ ~ .g= .}.•m ...giw 4~w'~'° .t ©~tl ~ ~® J®. i -3i IT .h ($ _ i ~~ Q I ~ rcu' ~ ti i . n ~. # a~. ' A C9 AU4A qV " W. _. __, . __ ~. w_,._ . C€I IVT P~I~~'~(;~dPHS Buliding A, west elevation, looking southeast. 301Acean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Repoli pale 40 Building B, north elevation, looking east. t3uilding 13, north elevation, south. City Landmark Assessment Report page 4I 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Report page 4? Building B, window detail. 301 Ocean Avenue City Landmark Assessment Repor[ page 43 Building A, window detail. Intent south. 30I Ocean Avenue CiTy Landmazk Assessment Report pale 4A Building A on right, Building B on left, from interior courtyard, looking north. Building A, elevator vestibule facing interior courtyard. City Landmark Assessment Report pale 4J ATTACHMENT F Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes, January 12, 2009 29 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION City of Santa Monica Founded 1875 "Populus felix in urbe felic~" Monday, January 12, 2009 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm in honor and memory of Councilmember Herb Katz. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach John Berley, Chair Pro Tempore Nina Fresco RogerGenser Barbara Kaplan, Chair Ruthann Lehrer Ruth Shari Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III 2. 3. REPORT FROM STAFF: Ms. Tanemori reported that Jones and Stokes Associates ICF will present the final report and summary findings from the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update during the February 9, 2009 Landmarks Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 1 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4-A. November 10, 2008 (Continued from the December 8. 2008 Meeting) Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve the amended November 10, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 4-B. December 8, 2008 The Commission made several corrections to the December 8, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the December 8, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: None. 6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission): None 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8-A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 08CA-018 200 Santa Monica Pier for design approval of improvements to the Santa Monica Pier in conjunction with its 100th Anniversary celebration in 2009 including reconstruction of the Carousel building's original `onion dome' and restoration of period signage on the building• installation of historic points of interest plaques installation of ocean-themed seating on the deck east of the Carousel buildina• and installation of new necklace lighting around the Pier deck: (Continued to the February 9, 2009 Meefnn 8-B. Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006 301 Ocean Avenue, to determine whether the multi-family residential property in whole or in part should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from the December 8 2008 Meeting) Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to hear Item 9-A before Item 8-B. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures. 2 Ms. Tanemori presented the -staff report. .Staff recommended that the Commission deny Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006 for 301 Ocean Avenue based upon the draft findings in the staff report. Commissioner Genser asked staff if additional information from the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update is forthcoming regarding the status of 301 Ocean Avenue as a contributor to the potential San Vicente Boulevard historic. district. Ms. Tanemori responded that the information that staff has received is in draft form and staff has not received information on district forms, which would include information about properties identified as contributing. Commissioner Genser asked staff to define the western boundary for the North of Montana Area Update for the Historic Resources Inventory. Ms. Tanemori responded that the survey area was bounded by Palisades Park on the west. Commissioner Lehrer-asked staff if buildings which are associated with historic personages were included in previous historic surveys: Ms. Tanemori stated that buildings are typically identified during field surveys based on their architectural merit; however, outreach and attention has been given in the past to identifying buildings with other types of significant associations. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher (owners' representative), Robert Chattel (owners' representative), Ty Wapato, Lily Ball, Stephen Dietrich, Shelby King, Dish Taylor, Saundra Wooten, Chris Wallace, Bobbe Houston, Trevor Sterry, Sheriden Dewees, Kenneth Morrison, Angela Ungurean, James Clark, Christina Clark, Jody Hummer, and Louis Scaduto. Mr. Wapato, Ms. Ball, Mr. Dietrich, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wooten, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Houston, Ms. Dewees, Ms. Ungurean, Ms. Hummer,- and Mr. Scaduto supported the nomination. Mr. Kutcher, Mr. Chattel, Ms. King, Mr. Sterry, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Clark did not support the designation. Mr. Kutcher presented the rebuttal. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked Mr. Chattel to explain the. reason why additional information or connection is required if the person in question is identified as a historic personage. Mr. Chattel responded that the property must be clearly associated with the person's productive life. Chair Kaplan asked Mr. Chattel if the location of Mayor Hoover's residence had an impact on her work as a City Councilmember and Mayor. Mr. Chattel responded that based on his professional opinion, the location of the property did not influence her work since she is associated with a number of citywide issues. As well, Mr. Chattel stated that other properties, such as City Hall or the Santa Monica Pier, are associated with her contributions to the community. Commissioner Fresco asked Mr. Wapato to identify the artist of the sketch that he submitted to .the Commission. Mr. Wapato responded that the sketch is attributed to Joe Estep and was drawn in 1952. 3 Commissioner Censer asked Mr. Wapato if the Hoovers planned to build a third story. Mr. Wapato responded that a third story could have been contemplated at the time the sketch was drawn. Commissioner Censer asked Ms. Hummer to clarify the criteria which she believes should be used to designate 301 Ocean Avenue as a City Landmark since she did not .attribute significance to the property based on an association with Clo Hoover. Ms. Hummer responded that the property should be designated under Criteria 1, 2, and 6. Commissioner Bach asked staff if a Landmark has been designated ih the past solely on the basis of Criterion 3. Ms. Tanemori responded in the negative. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if National Register Bulletin 32 is typically used in a landmark evaluation. Ms. Tanemori responded that National Register Bulletin 32'has been cited in assessment documents prepared by the City's consultants in the past. Chair Pro Tempore Berley asked staff if National Register Bulletin 32 has been used to determine whether or not an individual rises to the level of historic personage. Ms. Tanemori responded that the bulletin is used to determine whether a person is significant and to establish the relationship between the individual and the property. Commissioner Lehrer stated that former Mayor Clo Hoover is a significant historical personage because of the following: [1] she broke the glass ceiling for women participating in local politics and [2] conserving the scenic. and historic aspects of Santa Monica Bay. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the location of the building is significant, in part, because one local newspaper article in 1973 stated that her political views were perhaps shaped by her view of the Santa Monica Bay from her residence. Commissioner Lehrer noted that Mayor Hoover's political life was carried out in City Hall; however, she. used her residence as an office for her political activity. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the Commission should use the six criteria in the Landmark Ordinance for local designation and stated that Bulletin 32 should only assist in the determination of a historic personage. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that 301 Ocean Avenue meets Criteria 3 and 6 because Mayor Hoover is a historic personage as defined by the Landmark Ordinance and the property is sited in a unique location. Chair Pro Tempore Berley added that Mayor Hoover and her husband developed and lived in the property, which provides the connection between Mayor Hoover and the property. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the structure is not a spectacular piece of architecture but designation is not dependent upon the building being architecturally significant. 4 Commissioner Lehrer described the architectural qualities of the structure and stated that the building is consistent and harmonious with the courtyard architecture in the neighborhood. Commissioner Fresco stated that the Commission needs to separate their affection and respect for Mayor Hoover from her actual political and social accomplishments which may have shaped the community. Commissioner Fresco noted that Mayor Hoover was Santa Monica's first female mayor but was not Santa Monica's first female councilmember and that Mayor Hoover was not the first councilmember to oppose drilling in the Santa Monica Bay. Commissioner Fresco stated that the building could be designated if Mayor Hoover is determined to be a significant. historical personage because of her strong association with the building. Commissioner Fresco stated that the first building on the site was beautifully designed by a significant architect; however, the later additions to the property have altered its significance. Commissioner Bach stated that any building sited at 301 Ocean Avenue would satisfy Criterion 6, regardless of its architectural significance. She stated that the structure has a typical vernacular design for the period and could be a contributor to the potential San Vicente Historic District. However, Commissioner Bach stated that the connection between the structure and Mayor Hoover is not compelling enough to warrant designation. Commissioner Shari stated that Mayor Hoover had a distinct vision for Santa Monica and her political views were probably shaped by the location of her residence. Commissioner Shari stated that Criterion 3 of the Landmarks Ordinance is broader than the National Bulletin. Commissioner Shari stated that Mayor Hoover is a historic personage and the designation meets Criterion 3. Commissioner Shari also stated that the location of the structure is very unique because it is the gateway to the potential San Vicente Historic District and is a familiar visual feature of the area. Therefore, Commissioner Shari stated that the building meets Criteria 3 and 6. Chair Kaplan stated that it is difficult to recognize or understand Mayor Hoover's contributions. by walking past the building and suggested that a plaque to commemorate her accomplishments is a more appropriate way to honor her. Chair Fresco noted that other improvements were reviewed by the Commission in the past to commemorate other active members of the community and those individuals were sometimes found to be important but did not meet the threshold for Landmark designation; therefore, the Commission must carefully evaluate potential significant historic personages. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that Mayor Hoover's significant achievements helped end discriminatory practices against women who want to serve their community through public office. He stated that Mayor Hoover encouraged other 5 women to become community leaders by being an excellent example of a successful female community leader. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that no other area the City is similar to the transition from Ocean Avenue to San Vicente Boulevard which makes the location singularly unique. Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006, 301 Ocean Avenue based upon Criteria 3 and 6. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion. Commissioner Censer stated that the National Register Bulletin 32 is helpful because it gives the Commission guidelines to determine the significance of a historic personage and it also clarifies that a strong connection between the historic personage and the building must be present. Commissioner Censer stated that the location of Mayor Hoover's residence could .have influenced her political views. Commissioner Censer noted that former Councilmember and Mayor Dennis Zane, founder of the Santa Monica Renter's Right (SMRR) organization, and Councilmember Pam O'Connor lived in a building on Ninth Street. Commissioner Censer stated that this building may not be eligible for landmark status based upon the whether Mayor Zane and Councilmember O'Connor become historic personages. Commissioner Lehrer stated that during Mayor Hoover's. tenure, the issues concerning the future development of Santa Monica were divisive and controversial and the direction of the City was unclear. Commissioner Lehrer stated that many women were involved in civic activities during the 1960s but Mayor Hoover moved beyond the usual civic duties assigned to women to become a councilmember and mayor. Commissioner Lehrer stated that Mayor Hoover played an instrumental role in shaping the community and that she also broke barriers for minorities who were interested in public service. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the property also meets Criterion 6 and that Criteria 3 and 6 are interwoven because the location of the building helped to shape her political viewpoint. Commissioner Fresco stated that the designation should include Mayor Hoover's excellent performance as a councilmember and her ability to connect with her constituents. Commissioner Fresco also stated that her significance is reinforced by the work she did in the community and her support of many organizations such as the Red Cross. Commissioner Fresco stated that she is unable to support the designation based upon Criterion 6. However, Commissioner Fresco stated that she could support the designation under Criterion 1 because of the "Soviet Santa Monica" sign that was once on the building since it was emblematic of the divisive-topic of rent control which is part of Santa Monica's legacy, and because the property was built in response to the great need for affordable housing during the 1950s when there was a housing shortage due to a boom in the aerospace industry. 6 Chair Kaplan stated that Mayor Hoover would be commemorated for the first time if 301 Ocean Avenue is designated as a City Landmark. Chair Kaplan stated that the Commission could be starting a history of Mayor Hoover from this research and inquired whether it is within the Commission's purview to decide how to commemorate a locally significant public figure. Commissioner Bach stated that she will not support the designation of 301 Ocean Avenue. Commissioner Bach stated that Mayor Hooverwas a significant and beloved community leader but stated that the nexus between Hoover and the property is not strong enough and therefore designating the apartment complex is not an appropriate way to recognize Mayor Hoover's leadership. Commissioner Bach also stated that the building is important withiri the context of a district along San Vicente Boulevard, but does not rise to level of landmark status based on its architecture, in part because the Teriton is a better example of its property type. Chair Kaplan stated that she, too, finds the Teriton to be a much better example of 1950's architecture and that the relationship between the building and Mayor Hoover is not strong enough to warrant designation. Chair Kaplan also stated that while Clo Hoover should be recognized somewhere in the community, designating 301 Ocean Avenue would not be the best way to honor Mayor Hoover, in part, because. it is not the best representation of her contributions to the City. Chair Fresco stated that she is in support of the. designation if Criterion 6 is eliminated from the motion. Chair Pro Tempore Berley made a substitute motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006 for 301 Ocean Avenue based on Criterion 3. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the substitute motion and was approved by the following vote: AYES: Berley, Fresco, Lehrer, Shari NAYS: Bach, Genser, Kaplan 7 ATTACHMENT G Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2009 42 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION City of Santa Monica Founded 1875 "Populus felix in urbe felici' Monday, February 9, 2009 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The Commission was called to order at 6:13 pm. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach John Berley, Chair Pro Tempore Nina Fresco Roger Genser Barbara Kaplan, Chair Ruthann Lehrer Ruth Shari Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Couhcil Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III 6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 6-A. Landmark Designation Application O8LM-006. 301 Ocean Avenue designating the multi-family residential property as a City Landmark. Commissioner Fresco stated that it was her understanding that the reason the Commission found Clo Hoover to be significant was because of her relationship to the political `glass ceiling', because she was. the first female mayor, served for fourteen years on the Council, and she championed the participation of women and minorities in local political discourse. Commissioner Fresco also stated that she believed the Commission did not determine that her votes related to issues such as the Santa Monica Bay and the Pier were part of her historical significance since those votes were taken as part of her regular role as a Councilmember. Commissioner Fresco reiterated that she voted for designation 1 -based on what she understood to be a more narrow statement of significance as opposed to what is contained the draft Statement of Official Action before the Commission for approval this evening. Commissioner Lehrer asked Commissioner Fresco if she thinks it is appropriate to exclude from the Statement of Official Action discussion of Hoover's votes on key issues. Commissioner Fresco agreed, stating that is what she believed she was voting for last month. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that both he and Ms. Tanemori reviewed the audio of the Commission's discussion and that the Statement of Official Action before the Commission reflects the action the Commission took with respect to designation of 301 Ocean Avenue. Commissioner Lehrer stated that one association between Mayor Hoover and the subject property that was discussed by the Commission was not included in the findings: Mayor Hoover used her home as an office and conducted meetings and research related to her work as a Councilmember at the property. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that while that association was discussed, staff listened to the audio to confirm the basis for the motion to designate the property and. it was not elaborated upon further and was not relied upon as a rationale for the motion to designate made by Commissioner Berley, which was then discussed further by the Commission. Ms. Tanemori stated that staff carefully reviewed the audio of the meeting and stated that the Commission found that the association between Ms. Hoover and the building was a result of her long-term residency at the property and because she and her husband developed the building, not because she may have conducted some work while residing in the building. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that some of the discussion regarding whether Mayor Hoover conducted work from her residence could not be substantiated, though the Commission did discuss that it seemed likely that Mayor Hoover would have conducted meetings and done City-related work at her residence. However, Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that there was no factual evidence that had come to light, that he is aware of, to substantiate these points. Finally, he stated that the connection between Hoover and the building is based on what is outlined in the Statement of Official Action. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that while there was oral evidence submitted suggesting that Hoover conducted meetings and City work from her residence, this was not identified as information that persuaded the Commission such that it was found to be a basis for designating the property. 2 Commissioner Genser made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for Landmark Designation Application 08LM-006, 301 Ocean Avenue. Chair Pro Tempore Berley seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari NAYS: Fresco ATTACHMENT H Staff-Recommended Findings 56 Attachment H Staff Recommended Findings Based on the research and evaluation of the multi-family residential property located at 301 Ocean Avenue, the property does not meet the designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and is therefore not eligible for City Landmark designation. The following draft findings are made to support this conclusion: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural. history of the City. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is a typical and unremarkable example of post-war multi-family residential architecture, a multi=family housing type that was popular in Santa Monica from the years following World War II through the early 1960s. The property's Building A, designed by architect Joe M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its .integrity of design, workmanship, and materials has been compromised. The property was built in stages, lacks unity of design and minimally incorporates the character-defining features of post-war multi- family residential architecture. Furthermore, it is not a Garden Apartment and therefore does not contribute to the potential San Vicente Boulevard Multi-Family Residence District. It does have a central courtyard and some basic elements of Modern design and construction, but the complex is not set back from the street, there is little garden frontage, and the layout does not incorporate the seamless continuity of space between the interior courtyard and the frontage that is required for classification as a Garden Apartment. The apartment complex was developed by Mr. and Mrs. Hoover as income property and the penthouse apartment was the Hoover's primary residence during the period of Clo Hoover's productive life as a City Councilmember and Mayor, but the subject property is not emblematic of the economic, political or architectural history of the City or of Clo Hoover's tenure as a City Councilmember or as the City's first . female mayor. Furthermore, the property does not have significant cultural or social associations. For these reasons the subject property does exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue does not meet this criterion. As a typical example of a post-war multi-family residence, the building lacks sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for designation pursuant to this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue was the longtime residence of Clo Hoover who, as the second woman to serve as a councilmember and the City's first woman mayor, was a role model and an advocate for increasing the role of women in city government. Hoover was consistently recognized for her decades of service to Santa Monica, particularly as a woman in a political environment dominated by men. Nonetheless, even given the significance of Clo Hoover as an historic personage associated with the movement for political rights for women in Santa Monica's history, it does not appear that the subject property - occupied by owner/resident Clo Hoover during the many years of her significant contributions to the City -would be eligible for local Landmark designation for its identification with a historic personage. The subject property does not convey, embody, or represent in a clear manner her ideals or symbolize her accomplishments in furthering the role of women or physically represent her contributions as a public official. The properly does not appear to have a direct connection to the significant events associated with her productive life as a councilmember, Mayor, or advocate for woman serving in public offices. The multifamily dwelling did not directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her perspective for her votes against the causeway, against allowing jets at the Santa Monica Airport, or for her support for preserving the Santa Monica and Newcomb Piers. Nor did the 301 Ocean Avenue apartment complex directly inform Hoover's ideas or give her useful perspective for her historic role as the second woman councilmember in Santa Monica, her historic nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica, or for her advocacy for woman in public office. Furthermore, the architecture and design of 301 Ocean Avenue, does not directly represent the political ideas of Clo Hoover, and the building itself does not provide a visual representation of her community contributions or her historic role as the second woman councilmember in Santa Monica, and her historic nomination to the honorary title of Mayor of Santa Monica. Finally, research to date does not support a conclusion that she significantly conducted her productive public work from this residence. Therefore, it is unclear how the apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is related in a clear manner to the significant aspects of her productivity and public career as an elected official. There are other properties in Santa Monica that better represent her significant contributions to the City. The property most directly associated with her tenure as a public official is Santa Monica City Hall, including the Mayor's office and the City Council Chamber. The City Hall is a designated local Landmark and has been determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, the unencumbered views of Santa Monica Bay can be considered a part of her enduring legacy and those of many others who have contributed to the conservation of this natural resource. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, . or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The 47-unit apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue is a common, undistinguished example of a post-war multi-family residential complex that was built in stages from 1952-1958. It is a typical and common example of a post-war multi-family residential complex constructed in the Palisades Tract along San Vicente Boulevard and other major corridors in Santa Monica during the post-war period. The property does not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics in that it incorporates typical features associated with post-war residential architecture such as its massing, low-pitched roof, overhanging eaves, and stucco finish. 301 Ocean Avenue is not an excellent or unique example of its type and lacks unity of design found in noteworthy examples of post-war multi-family residential architecture that more fully articulate the key design elements of the idiom. The property's Building A, designed by locally significant architect Joe M. Estep, was substantially modified in 1958 such that its integrity of design, workmanship, setting, and materials has been compromised. Furthermore, the subject property does not embody the distinguishing characteristics or character-defining features of the Garden Apartment type and does not meet the eligibility requirements for eligibility as a contributor to the potential courtyard apartment district. Most notably, 301 Ocean Avenue is laid out on the periphery of the irregular lot, not setback. On the San Vicente facing elevation, the exterior of the building is just a few feet from the property line maximizing the units on the lot and creating a private interior courtyard separated from the street. The entrance to the courtyard from San Vicente is along a narrow paved walkway through a small gap between Building A and the driveway leading to the subterranean parking which is adjacent to the northeast edge of Building B. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. The original architect of the property's Building A, Joe M. Estep, was a locally important architect practicing in Santa Monica. However, the original design for Building A was thoroughly compromised when the building was substantially altered in 1958. As a result, the property is not a significant or representative example of Estep's work and does not meet this criterion. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. The subject property is located on the curve where San Vicente Boulevard meets Ocean Avenue opposite Palisades Park, but its location on a corner lot is not unique. The curved elevation of the property's Building B, which hugs the perimeter of the property near the sidewalk, and the building's relative prominence as viewed from Ocean Avenue or the promenade in Palisades Park does not qualify the property as an established visual features of the neighborhood. The curved design is not a singular physical characteristic but is largely a function of the pie-shaped parcel upon which the property is situated. In all likelihood the apartment complex was designed to accommodate the greatest number of units with the available ocean views. Its relative visual prominence is primarily due to its location on the corner of San Vicente and Ocean Park rather than the building's design. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. ATTACHMENTI Correspondence received since the January 12, 2009 Public Hearing Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 61 James W. Lunsford 1345 Sunset Ave. C{c 3Y ~L~1f~~~~~Jf~'`F.- Santa Monica; CA 90405 9 MAY 14 P 3 >30 May 10, 2009 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica. GA 90401 Honorable City Council Members, As a former Planning Director I was very fortunate that much of my period of employment coincided with Clo Hoover's tenure on the City Council. Consequently, I noted with interest the recent decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate her former residence for Landmark status. The Planning Staff's report and analysis in this case are extremely thorough and complete and their conclusions and recommendations seem entirely valid. While recognizing that designating the 301 Ocean Avenue property was a sincerely intended tribute to an exceptional and beloved Santa Monica official, to me it just doesn't say CIo Hoover. Clo Hoover was a gracious, devoted and respected Councilwoman. She was not only the City's first woman Mayor, but the first Santa Monica Mayor to have an official office in City Hall after the City Manager form of government was adopted in 1948. Shortly after her election she established an office on the second floor of City Hall where the public could come and talk with her about their concerns or ideas. When thinking about a Clo Hoover memorial, I visualize something beautiful and enduring in Palisades Park or the Civic Center; an artistic bench, pergola, garden spot or similar monument with an appropriate description of her civic contributions and accomplishments. Iwould be more than happy to contribute to such a project as I am sure many other Santa Monica citizens would be as well. An inappropriate Landmark designation could potentially curtail development of a more suitable and meaningful memorial. While Commission decisions should generally be affirmatively regarded, in this particular instance I would respectfully .urge the Council to adopt the alternative staff position and consider some other avenue of honoring Mrs. Hoover's contributions to our community. Sincerely, Director of Planning 1971-,1984/ Member. Landmarks Commission 1998-2000 JAMES D. WILLIAMS SANTA MONICA May 15, 2009 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Members of the City Council: I was city manager in Santa Monica from 1973 to 1978. for approximately two years during that period, Clo Hoover served as a councilmember and for a portion of that time as mayor. We met frequently regarding city business, especially during her term as mayor. All of the meetings were conducted in the city manager's office or ih the mayor's office. At no time did I meet with `her at her residence at 301 Ocean Avenue on city policy matters, administration of the city government, or city department activities. Yours Truly James D. Williams 721 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 90401 Telephone 310-393.9688 ~ Facsimile 310-393-6065 Mazch 30, 2009 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3295 Re: 301 Ocean Avenue Landmarkine I am writing as a long time Santa Monica resident (since 1936), a graduate of Santa Monica High, past Chairman of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, former member of the Santa Monica Planning Commission, and member of the Santa Monica City Council during the first half of the 1960's. I was privileged to serve on the Council with Clo Hoover for 3 years between May, 1962 and April, 1965. My wife, June E. Bohn, and I were long time friends of Ms. Hoover whose service to the City of Santa Monica as a Council Woman and our first female Mayor is worthy of recognition. We believe Ms. Hoover is an important figure in Santa Monica history because of her civic leadership on a wide variety of issues. She was a leading advocate of women's issues, was actively involved in contemporary issues surrounding the Santa Monica Airport and a key figure in the effort to save the Santa Monica Pier because of its historical significance and value as a tourist destination. Furthermore, she was an activist in her support of measures to protect Santa Monica Bay and perhaps most importantly, historically, was a leader to bringing improved downtown retai] shopping access for Santa Monica residents Honoring Ms. Hoover, Santa Monica's first woman Mayor, for her long service to the city, her leadership in the revitalization of our down town area and for her long participation in community affairs is long overdue and richly deserved. Santa Monica has honored past civic leaders, such as Ken Edwazds and Christine Reed, by recognition in public places and we believe something similar would be a much more effective way to convey to current residents and visitors Ms. Hoover's importance in the City's history. Landmazking a private building which very few will ever see or appreciate will not accomplish this goal. We hope you will consider further research or perhaps naming an ad hoc committee to look into the matter of establishing a way of memorializing Clo's leadership in important and relevant issues relating to SantaMonica's history and her long and meaningful service to the city. v ery nary yyrrt n ,J T '1 ,Ttstm M. ~'`~ J e E. Bohn ~~' 70177 1490 (1[JQ4 5922 2525 February 20, zoos Mayor Yen Gensar and Sarr#a 411ontca Ci#tj Caunoil 1665 Maln S#ree#, RoDm 3tl2 Sar+ta Monica, CA 80409-3295 Re: CPo tlvover and 309 t)cean Avenue Dear 141ayor taenser and Members of file CI#y Council: l am writing as a long-#ime San#a Monica resident, a former Mayor (1g7~-1876} and member of the City Cvunci! {1979-1979}, and a colleague and friend of Cio Hoover. ! am familiar wi#h the Landmarks Commission's decision to landmark the two apartment buildings at 301 Ocean Avenue #hat oorttain units where Cio and her husband resided for many years. !respectfully disagree with the Landmarks Commisston's decision. This letter e:cpfalns why. ! am very familiar with Clo Hoover and her.public service, Including her years spent as Mayor and a member of the City Councai. C!o served an the Ci#y Council from 1963 tv 9975, and as Mayor from 9873 tv 1974. l was privileged tv be her colleague on the City Council. CIo and I were personal friends as well as polatlvai colleagues. Although we sametimes disagreed on Issues {! am a Democrat and Clo was a s#aunch fiepubtican}, ! have always held her in high regard and 'nave tremendous respect for her public activism and service to our oommunity. Cio is an important figure in locafi history. She was the #lrst woman to serve as Santa Mvnica's Mayor, and was an early and effective advocate for women in politics. Cle was involved in all ref the signif€cant public lessees in her time on the City Council, including those involving the Santa Monica Airport, revi#aliza#ion of our Downtown, saving the Santa itAonica Pier, and protecting Santa Monloa Bay. Honoring her accomplishments would he appropriate, if rtot overdue. But ! do not support landmarking the twa apartment buidings at 309 Ocean Avenue as the means to taonor her. Rather, !believe Cio should be honored for her years of publio service in a public place --Santa ~honica Pier, for example, or in Santa Monioa`s Civic Center. Historscaily, that is fsvw Santa tvtonica has honored its accomplished Ci#y leaders. We honored Ysn Edwards, a s#rong advocate of City suppoY[ for svcia! services, by naming the Yen Edwards Center, and we honored Christie Reed, a vigorous advocate for public parks and the environment, by renaming Lincoln Park as Reed Park. Clo is clearly deserving of similar reccx,}nitivn, in a public plaoe where members of the general public oan learn of and gain appreoiatton for her otsrttributions to Santa Monica. f~trives@uel-~zOf~. rlet I am confident this is how Clo would have liked to be remembered -- with recognition for her public service in a public place. I understand some members of our community take the position that 301 Ocean Avenue should be landmarked primarily because Clo used her home for political meetings and parties. As one who attended some meetings and social events at Clo's home, there was nothing unusual about this. In Santa Monica, members of the City Council sometimes hold political meetings in their homes as well as political events and parties. Over the years, I have attended more than my share of political meetings and parties at the homes of various members of the City Council -Both in the 1970s when I served and since I left the Cifij Council. Clo's occasional use of her home for political meetings and parties was not at all unusual. 1 am also aware that some have claimed Clo's poltical involvement was inspired because she could see the ocean from her residence at 361 Ocean Avenue. I disagree. 1 never heard Clo say anything like this, and I do not believe it. !n my opinion, Clo's political involvement was motivated by her deep love for Santa Monica -the entire City -and by a strong sense that women had been excluded from public office for far too long. As a Councilmember, Mayor and civic leader, Clo was involved in all of the issues of the day -some close to her home (the Santa Monica Pier and Santa Monica Bay} and some at the other end of the City (Santa Monica Airport). And CIo's greatest accomplishment -- as a pioneer for women in politics and public office in Santa Monica -had nothing to do with where she lived. In closing, I urge the City Council to reverse the Landmarks Commission's decision and not landmark the two apartment buildings at 301 Ocean Avenue. But you should not stop there. Instead of Iandmarking 301 Ocean Avenue, I urge you to form a "blue ribbon" committee to explore ways to honor Cto Hoover, possiBly in cooperation with the Santa Monica Historical Society. As one who knew Clo well, I am willing to volunteer as chair or serve on such a committee. I am confident that such a committee could identify far better ways to honor CIo and preserve the memory of her many accomplishments. Sincerely, ' ~./. ,.. { athaniel Tnves CC: Lamont Ewell, City Manager Maria Stewart, City Clerk ~~~~ ~~,~'Gf a ~~~ ~~ 9~~1~s ~~ ~ ~~ -~~ ~ A-~~i --~ c~ - ~ nna~~a Stewart ~ l ~ 1 ~ Subject: RE: 301 Ocean Avenue From: Linda Modaro <lindamodaro@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:31:15 -0700 To: <city@genser.org>, Kevin McKeown <kevin~nckeown.net>, <robert.holbrook@smgove.net>, <richard.bloom@smgov.net>, <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>, <bobby.shriver@smgov.net>, <gleam.davis@smgov.net> Cc: D]amal Kord <djamalkord@gmail.com> Subject: 301 Ocean Avenue Dear members of the Santa Monica City Council, This email is in reference to the Landmark status of 301 Ocean Avenue. I want to disclose that I used to live in the building and as it had been my home from 1992-2008 I miss living there dearly. 301 Ocean Avenue was sold six years ago. It went from a family lineage built and owned by the Hoovers, who considered this building their residence, a place to do business and a representation of how they were involved in the Santa Monica community, to a building owned by a corporation with quite different intentions regarding it's existence. Immediately hired lawyers implemented the. process of evicting tenants, reduced tenant amenities, submitted plans to tear down the current structure, and negotiated codes and contracts with the city to build a future "project". The people in this corporation did not buy in Santa Monica honoring the community based programs, understanding and respecting the history of rent control, or wanting to contribute and enhance the diversity of Santa Monica neighborhoods. I take contention with an outside organization coming into our community and doing "business as usual",.trying to outsmart laws written to protect our communities and the people living there. They brought the money and manpower to make a powerful attempt. 301 Ocean Avenue was Landmarked by the Commission, who voted to uphold the criteria of the Santa Monica law written to try and protect this city from turning into a *predominantly* commercial based city. Those laws were put into practice by countless Santa Monica city Councils before. you, including the appeal process we are now participating in. The Commission ruled that this building meets the criteria of historical personage. In my eyes, the decision before you is clear, although I agree it can be seen from many angles and is in many ways a complex decision. This has been a long and arduous process for most people involved within this dispute - the tenants, the neighborhood and the larger Santa Monica community, as well as for the developers and yourselves. I encourage your honesty, integrity and clarity to surface in the decision making process and I want you to do your job with respect for the people who live in this city - our people and our history and future. Thank you for hearing my opinion. Linda Modaro, L.AC. 528 Arizona Avenue, Suite 208 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310.451.2036 lindamodaro(d~mail.com 1 Additional documentation is available for review in the City Clerk's Office.