SR 06-12-2018 8A (2)
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 12, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Preliminary review and discussion of the updated design concept for a new
mixed-use development project consisting of commercial, hotel, museum, and
residential uses, including the retention and rehabilitation of two City-
designated Landmark buildings at the property located at 101 Santa Monica
Boulevard (Development Agreement Application 13DEV -004)
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Council:
1. Review the Applicant’s revised design concept for a new mixed-use hotel,
cultural, retail, and residential development (in conformance with height and
density limits for this site in the adopted Downtown Community Plan) and provide
direction regarding desired design parameters for the site and potential priority
community benefits to be negotiated;
2. Authorize staff to initiate negotiations with the Applicant for the Ocean Avenue
Project and Development Agreement.
Executive Summary
In 2013, a Development Agreement application (13DEV-004) was submitted by M.
David Paul Associates / Worthe Real Estate Group for a proposed mixed-use hotel,
cultural, retail, and residential development at the northeast corner of Santa Monica
Boulevard and Ocean Avenue (“Ocean Avenue Project”) designed by Gehry Partners,
LLP. The proposal was one of those deferred by Council action in 2016 pending the
completion of the Downtown Community Plan.
The project site at 101 Santa Monica Boulevard is approximately two acres in size and
located at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. The Applicant’s
revised project design was submitted in December 2017 in compliance with the height
and density parameters for Established Large Sites in the Downtown Community Plan
and consists of the following components:
New 115 room hotel;
2 of 26
40,000 Square Foot (SF) museum;
79 for-rent residential apartments comprised of 19 replacement rent-controlled
units, 18 affordable units, and 42 market-rate units;
24,700 SF retail/restaurant;
5,000 SF public observation deck on top of the hotel building;
Approximately 27% of the parcel area provided as ground level open space;
Subterranean parking; and
Retention and rehabilitation of two City-designated Landmark buildings.
The proposed maximum height is 12-stories and 130 feet and the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of developed space to size of the site is approximately 2.6. The Downtown Plan
limits for this site allow height up to 130 feet and an FAR of up to 4.0 (or occupied
building area four times the total square footage of the site.)
As discussed more fully in the Background section of this report, the revised design
concept was presented and discussed by the Architectural Review Board, Landmarks
Commission, and Planning Commission earlier this year. Most recently, the Planning
Commission provided comments for consideration and unanimously approved a motion
by a vote of 7-0 recommending that Council authorize staff to initiate negotiations for the
Ocean Avenue Project.
Key Issues for Consideration
The following are two key issues that are recommended for Council’s consideration of
the concept plans and formulation of direction to staff:
Provide comment on the degree to which the conceptual plan and proposed mix
of uses is consistent with Downtown Community Plan (DCP) goals and policies
that support the area as a high-quality, mixed use district offering opportunities
for housing for people across the income spectrum, jobs, arts and culture, and
community/visitor gathering places.
3 of 26
Identify potential negotiation points and community benefits that would be
appropriate given the specific characteristics of the site and location within
Downtown, and within the context of the DCP’s five community benefit priorities:
1) Publicly Accessible Open Space; 2) Affordable Housing; 3) Mobility and
Circulation; 4) Cultural Institutions; and 5) Historic Preservation.
Background
Following submittal of the original Development Agreement application in February
2013, which included a 22-story (244’) central tower element, approximately 338,695
SF, and rehabilitation of two City Landmark designated buildings as components of the
proposed museum/cultural campus, the Applicant hosted a Community Meeting in
March 2013 to introduce the proposed project which was followed by the Architectural
Review Board’s conceptual discussion of the proposal in August 2013. In summary, the
Board provided positive comments on the original proposal, noting that the Applicant
team had created a plan that uses building height intelligently to create a sculptural
tower element that responds to its Downtown context; provides a thoughtful plan for
pedestrian circulation; and provides a cultural component that is an important
contribution to the Downtown.
Per Council direction, City review of the project was put on hold pending completion of
the Downtown Community Plan.
The Council adopted the DCP on July 25, 2017 and included an Established Large
Sites Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that
projects for these three sites be processed as Development Agreements, and that each
comply with specific development standards (building height, floor area, and open
space) if an Applicant proposes a project over Tier 2 development parameters.
Attachment “H” provides a link to the Council’s July 25, 2017 staff report.
As described more fully in this report, the Applicant submitted revised project plans in
December 2017 that addressed early feedback, as well as programmatic changes and
4 of 26
design concept revisions compliant with the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay
regulations. The Applicant hosted a second Community Meeting to introduce this
revised project design on January 11, 2018. A link to the original and updated project
plans, the 2013 and 2018 community meeting videos, and summary of attendees’
comments are available on the project page located on the City’s website (“Attachment
A”).
Architectural Review Board – Preliminary Concept Discussion
The Architectural Review Board held its second preliminary concept discussion on
February 20, 2018. In summary, the Board members strongly support the preliminary
project design. In particular, the Board identified several notable aspects of the project
including:
The creation of an interconnected set of open spaces;
The three-dimensional quality of the project;
Livability of the residential units;
The lightness of the implied color and materials;
The separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
The relocation of the Landmark Victorian home appropriately creates an open
court with the Spanish Colonial Revival Landmark building;
Reconfiguration of the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue
with a new building; and
The general massing of the project, in particular, the way the massing is broken
into separate buildings and the additional massing placed along the street.
Board members made several recommendations for development of the project:
In regard to the two designated Landmark buildings, there should be little or no
elements added to the Ocean Avenue frontage, and that any additional elements
or connections be reversible;
5 of 26
Consideration of whether the museum building should be a quiet element in
relation to the Landmark buildings or make a stronger architectural statement;
The corner at Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue should be stronger;
The open spaces and First Court should remain open and activated;
The landscape design for the project should have a strong identity, with sufficient
soil depth included in the project and structural design;
The residential buildings fronting the street should be more fully developed,
perhaps with a stronger architectural identity;
Consideration of an idea for signage throughout the site that is fully integrated;
Pedestrian scale should be further developed throughout the design pro cess;
Consideration of the views at the terminus of the open spaces;
Development of additional open space connections;
Consideration of wind and solar orientation in the open spaces and around the
project; and
Consideration of location for bicycle lockers and storage at grade.
The Board also challenged the design team to consider the design of the central
building to express an ascension skyward, and to design a project that will prove to be a
landmark of the 21st Century.
Landmarks Commission – Preliminary Concept Discussion
The Landmarks Commission held its preliminary concept discussion on March 12, 2018.
In summary, Commission members support the revised project design and note that the
design needs to be further developed to provide greater specificity regarding the
treatment of the Landmark buildings. Several Commission members also discussed
whether the Landmark buildings should be integrated into the overall project with limited
exterior interventions versus an imaginative treatment that responds more directly to the
6 of 26
project’s contemporary architectural language. The following provides a summary of the
feedback from individual Commissioners:
There is an opportunity to carefully and appropriately integrate the Landmark
properties and treat them in a manner that would “breathe new life” into the
buildings, with a priority on providing public access to the buildings.
The museum campus should include appropriate, reversible, and imaginative
treatment of the Landmark buildings so that their identity as historic buildings is
retained. The massing and configuration of the site is appropriate and an
improvement from the previous iteration, and the massing and height variations
of the proposal integrate nicely with the scale and massing of the Landmark
buildings.
The unique capabilities of the architect in handling the Landmarks are a welcome
component of the project. There should be expressive design elements
integrated into the treatment plan for the Landmark buildings. There should also
be special attention paid to glare and reflectivity as the design moves forward.
The project’s open spaces will be a beneficial element of the project. Confidence
was also expressed that the Applicant will integrate the well-documented
framework for treatment of cultural resources, including the means and methods
for appropriately moving and restoring historic buildings, into the project.
Maintaining the integrity of the Landmark structures and ensuring that their
identity not be lost or consumed with this project should be a priority. Concern
was expressed regarding the timing of the demolition permit review process for
the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard building due to the potential consequences of
that process. It was also noted that because the project may require formal
Landmarks Commission review in the future, comments provided at this point are
necessarily preliminary in nature.
The project should be implemented in a manner that maintains design harmony
as envisioned in the project renderings. The two Landmark buildings should
stand on their own and be rehabilitated. Support was expressed for the open
7 of 26
space and paseos and the tower element because it fits in well with the project.
Researching the original plantings and design associated with the Landmark
buildings would be informative and could be the basis for the future landscape
design. Pedestrian and vehicular access were also noted as elements of
importance for the project design.
The two Landmark buildings should be integrated into the museum campus as
freestanding buildings, rather than connected to the museum. The area around
the Landmarks and museum should be a park-like space. While the massing of
the museum appears appropriate, if the Landmark buildings are connected to the
new structure, they may appear as an afterthought. The onsite relocation of the
two Landmarks should not be problematic though it is important that both
buildings be placed at or near the elevation of the sidewalk. The two Landmark
buildings’ exteriors must be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Based on the Commission’s concern regarding the anticipated timeline for submittal of
the demolition permit application for the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard building, th e
Applicant agreed and formally submitted the application on March 23, 2018. From that
submittal date, the Landmarks Commission has 75 days to consider whether to file an
application for designation of the building as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit . The
property owner may extend that 75 day period to complete the demolition permit review.
The Commission discussed the demolition permit application at its April 9, 2018 meeting
and requested preliminary information about the property. City staff requested an
extension of time to finish its preliminary assessment of the property. With the property
owner’s grant of an extension of time, it is anticipated that the Commission will complete
its review of the demolition permit and determine whether to file a designation
application at its July 9, 2018 meeting.
Planning Commission – Preliminary Concept Discussion
8 of 26
The Planning Commission held its preliminary concept discussion on May 2, 2018. After
posing a series of questions to the Applicant team and a lengthy discussion, the
Commission unanimously approved a motion (7-0) to recommend that the Council
authorize staff to initiate negotiations for the Ocean Avenue Project, with consideration
given to the Planning Commission’s comments.
In summary, the Commission supports the project concept because it provides an
important cultural facility as a community benefit; and offers a beautiful design that
represents the Applicant team’s thoughtful study of the site and the relationship
between building height and open space, and an emphasis on the pedestrian
experience. The Commission expressed interest in seeing the architectural design
concept developed further and underscored the need for project of the highest caliber
that integrates the two Landmark buildings but also creates a stronger architectural
identity for the museum campus. Commissioners also stated that additional study is
required to ensure the project has an efficient and effective circulation plan for all modes
that fits the Downtown’s complex mobility network. There was also preliminary
discussion on how the project could more appropriately satisfy the DCP’s community
benefit priority for affordable housing.
Community members’ comments provided at the Planning Commission are provided as
Attachment “E”. The following provides a summary of comments from individual
Planning Commissioners, organized by theme:
Downtown Community Plan & Project Concept
The DCP established a framework for Established Large Sites already; the
project needs to conform. The City has the ability to reject the development
agreement if it does not comply with City’s policy direction.
The overall project must be a place for people of all ages (programming, site
planning, cultural campus, residential component, mix of uses, etc.).
The revised project concept and site plan is thoughtful and visually intriguing;
positive changes include the updated open space plan, subterranean ballroom to
9 of 26
reduce building mass above grade, and the overall design and integration of the
replacement rent-controlled units into the project.
Urban Design & Architectural Design Concept
All Commissioners agreed that the updated concept proposes a beautiful and
thoughtful project design at this beginning stage of the City review process.
The project site is unique along Ocean Avenue and at the end of Route 66. The
site demands the best and the project must be a legacy to the City and stellar in
all respects.
The project cannot just create background buildings to the two Landmark
structures. The design still needs to evolve and continue to develop on the ideas
of fluidity and spontaneity.
The project design is successful in accordance with the 130’ height limitation.
The corner of Ocean Avenue/Santa Monica feature must be exemplary and a
welcoming area for all visitors to project – both in terms of design and
programming.
The applicant has presented a thoughtful design; the only issue is its maximum
130’ height. While 130’ might be useful for the proposed observation deck, that is
perhaps not appropriate for other projects that were grouped together with the
same maximum allowable height in the DCP.
Palisades Park and the bluffs are some of the best Landmark features in the city.
The project changes the city skyline and diminishes the experience of the park
and the visual character of the park and bluffs as viewed from the beach.
Site Planning & Open Space
The updated open space plan provides an opportunity to make these spaces a
true gathering place for the community and not just visitors.
10 of 26
The pedestrian experience is vital to this project. Continue to develop the plan for
pedestrians along Santa Monica Boulevard and Second Street. The overall site
must feel like a space and project for the community instead of just a hotel.
It is beneficial that site planning and project design are still a “work in progress”
and subject to more study.
The east/west paseo between the hotel and resta urants needs more
consideration. The use of the space seems wasteful and not fully conceived yet.
The courtyard south of the museum campus that leads to ballroom does not
serve a purpose or create a place of interest.
Mobility/Circulation
Mobility questions are important and require additional consideration and input
from the City in terms of functionality and City policies/goals. How will vehicles
get to/from the project? Think about flows for all modes and impacts to circulation
in the surrounding area and specifically along Second Street.
The First Court paseo is a positive component of the project – it will increase
pedestrian safety.
Breaking up the alley network with the closure and redirection of First Court may
create the feeling of a superblock even with site porosity created by paseos.
Museum Campus & Treatment of Historic Features
The proposed museum building should not be a ‘background’ building; it is a
critical project component and needs to have its own identity.
The museum is a 60-foot tall building behind 30-foot tall Landmark structures; it
will be quite visible whether it is designed to have a quiet or bold architectural
presence.
While the museum campus concept will continue to be refined, the
ideas/aspirations of the courtyard are not clear and defined enough yet.
11 of 26
The design of the museum building should be simple and elegant but still special.
The museum courtyard could be a fun space for community members to explore
and enjoy - and it could be heart of the project. Consider expanding this space
further and consider connecting it to the observation deck entrance.
Sustainability
Sustainability will be a critically important project component. The Applicant has
not addressed yet how the project will generate its own power and accommodate
the practical necessity of developing a resilient building.
Community Benefits
The art museum/cultural institution is a much needed community benefit.
The proposed affordable housing is a good balance for the hotel use, in terms of
the project’s overall mix of uses and is consistent with the notion that the
Downtown is also a residential community.
The DCP community benefit priorities are relevant – also see DCP Table 2A3 for
a more detailed outline of community benefit categories.
The project should provide more affordable housing – although it is
understandable why the replacement of rent-controlled units are separated from
the overall unit count for the purposes of calculating the baseline percentage of
affordable units.
o Replacement rent-controlled units should be included in the calculation of
total units: aim for 30% of all units as affordable.
o Consider the income targeting as set forth in the DCP but provide more
lower-income category units.
The project will need a robust Transportation Demand Management program
with a program to incentivize non-Single Occupancy Vehicle trips to the museum
and hotel.
12 of 26
Refer to the local hiring framework that has been defined in recently-approved
development agreements, including hiring disadvantaged individuals.
Project Site Information
The project site is approximately 82,500 SF in area and consists of eleven parcels
located along Ocean Avenue at the northeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and
across First Court with frontage along Santa Monica Boulevard and the west side of
Second Street. As outlined on the Table 1, there are four buildings on the project site:
three commercial buildings and one mixed-use commercial and residential building at
101 Santa Monica Boulevard. There is also a surface parking lot on the project site at
the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Second Street.
Table 1.
Zoning District/
Design Guidelines:
Downtown Community Plan: Ocean Transition (OT)
Bayside Commercial (BC); and Established Large Sites Overlay
Parcel Area (SF):
82,500 SF /
11 parcels
Existing On-Site
Improvements &
Historic Resources
Inventory Status
(Year Built):
1327 Ocean Avenue: Commercial building (1951)
1333 Ocean Avenue: Victorian style commercial building (1906)
Designated City Landmark
1337 Ocean Avenue: Spanish Colonial Revival commercial building
(1926); Designated City Landmark
101 Santa Monica Blvd: Commercial/residential building (1925)
DCP HRI: 5S3
129 Santa Monica Blvd: Surface parking lot
13 of 26
CEQA Project will require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Adjacent Zoning &
Use:
North: Ocean Transition; commercial
South: Ocean Transition; commercial
East; Bayside Commercial; commercial
West: Open Space: Palisades Park
1333 Ocean Avenue – Landmark Victorian Residence
The circa 1906 structure located at 1333 Ocean Avenue was designated a City
Landmark in August 2001 based on its qualities as a rare example of Queen Anne style
Victorian architecture that serves as an important contributor to Ocean Avenue’s
character and reflects the City’s early residential development pattern along Ocean
Avenue at the turn of the twentieth century.
1337 Ocean Avenue – Landmark Spanish Colonial Revival-Style Commercial Building
The Spanish Colonial Revival Style building located at 1337 Ocean Avenue was
originally built with apartments above a ground level commercial space in 1926. The
structure was designated a City Landmark in August 2004 as an early and excellent
example of a mixed-use building along Ocean Avenue building that reflects the period of
development in the City when commercial development expanded to Ocean Avenue, a
primarily residential street at the time. The building was also designated based on its
architectural quality and its proximity to the two other early twentieth century Landmark
structures on the block: the Victorian building and Gussie Moran House located at 1333
and 1323 Ocean Avenue.
Neither the 1333 Ocean Avenue parcel nor the 1337 Ocean Avenue parcel were
designated as Landmark Parcels when the structures were formally designated as City
Landmarks.
101 Santa Monica Boulevard – Historic Resources Inventory
The building located at 101 Santa Monica Boulevard was constructed in 1925 with
ground floor commercial and second floor apartm ents. The building was originally
identified in the City’s 1983 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as a contributor to the
14 of 26
Central Business District, a district that appeared eligible for local listing or designation
through survey evaluation (Status Code 5D).
The original 1983 survey and subsequent updates conducted until 2008 all noted the
building’s extensive ground floor alterations and also confirmed its eligibility as a
contributor to the potential Central Business District.
The 2017 Downtown Community Plan HRI re‐evaluated the potential Central Business
District and concluded that the geographic grouping no longer retains sufficient integrity
to be eligible for listing as an historic district. Properties previously identified as potential
contributors to the Central Business District were evaluated for individual eligibility using
local, state, and federal criteria.
As a result, the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard building was identified through survey
evaluation as appearing eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark (Status Code
5S3) as an example of “Spanish Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a
commercial building with distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as
expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also
significant for representing early patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa
Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.”
Information about the two Landmark buildings and 101 Santa Monica Boulevard
building’s HRI forms from 1980s-1990s surveys is available as Attachment “B”. 2017
Downtown Community Plan HRI information is provided as Attachment “C”.
The Applicant also provided a Historic Resource Assessment for the 101 Santa Monica
Boulevard property prepared by Chattel, Inc. This document is provided as Attachment
“D”.
Downtown Community Plan Framework
15 of 26
This section of the report outlines the Downtown Community Plan’s policy and
regulatory framework that will guide City review and Development Agreement
negotiations for the project.
Established Large Sites
The DCP identifies three sites in the Downtown that, given parcel size and development
standards, could potentially provide significant community benefits for the circulation,
open space and cultural facilities that would otherwise not be anticipated from smaller
projects. These significant enhancements are identified as part of an overall strategy for
potential economic and functional improvements to address anticipated future needs in
the Downtown.
If the project were to be developed in compliance with the DCP’s Tier 2 standards, the
maximum allowable height for the project would be between 50’-60’. However, the DCP
established a codified, rigorous public process for projects on the three Esta blished
Large Sites to request consideration up to a height limit of 130 feet, subject to a
Development Agreement; requirements for additional environmental review; and
submittal of a detailed account of how the project meets the community benefit prioriti es
set forth in the DCP.
DCP policies and development standards identified for Established Large Sites specify
a framework to ensure that projects proposed on the three identified sites are consistent
with the community’s long-standing vision for an economically vital, culturally rich, and
diverse Downtown anchored by complete neighborhoods, multi -modal circulation
improvements, affordable housing, and a variety of cultural institutions, physical
infrastructure, and public realm amenities.
Specifically, Chapter 2A of the Downtown Community Plan (Attachment “F”) requires
projects proposed on the three Established Large Sites to provide five priority
community benefits, subject to negotiations regarding the specific level and type of
benefit to be provided:
1. Publicly Accessible Open Space
16 of 26
2. Affordable Housing
3. Mobility and Circulation
4. Cultural Institutions
5. Historic Preservation
The DCP also requires conformance with site-specific development standards for each
of the three Established Large Sites if an applicant proposes a Development Agreement
for a project over the DCP’s Tier 2 standards. For the Ocean Avenue Project site, the
plan specifies the following:
1. Maximum building height: 130’
2. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR): 4.0
3. Minimum open space: 50% of total parcel area comprised of 25% located at the
ground floor and 25% without a regulated location.
The project involves two designated City Landmarks and one HRI -identified property.
Accordingly, potential impacts to Cultural Resources will be studied in the
Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared for the project in compliance with
Established Large Sites Overlay regulations because the Applicant has submitted a
Development Agreement application to develop a project that exceeds Tier 2
parameters.
Project Description & Key Project Revisions
The proposed project is a mixed-use hotel, cultural, retail and residential development
that consists of the following key components, as revised and resubmitted to the City in
December 2017, in conformance with the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay
regulations and with the DCP’s five community benefit categories provided as part of
the project description:
Up to a 115-room hotel with meeting room, amenities, and banquet space
17 of 26
79 residential rental units, comprised of the following:
o 19 new rent-controlled units to replace the 19 existing on-site units
o 42 market rate units
o 18 affordable units
Ground-floor restaurant and retail space along Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica
Boulevard, and Second Street
Approximately 40,000 SF cultural/museum campus with ground level open space
Publically-accessible roof-top observation deck
Ground level pedestrian paths throughout site
Subterranean parking
Retention and adaptive reuse of two, on-site designated City Landmark buildings
as part of the proposed cultural/museum campus
Approximately 317,500 gross SF, comprised of the following:
o 141,500 SF hotel
o 24,000 SF retail/restaurant
o 91,000 SF residential
o 49,000 SF museum, restored Landmark buildings, public observation deck
2017 Downtow n Community
Plan Standards for Established
Large Sites
2017 DCP Standard Proposed Project
Maximum Building Height 130’ 130’ (12 stories)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.0 2.65
Minimum Open Space 50% of parcel area
(comprised of 25% at
ground level &
~63% of parcel area
(comprised of 27% at
ground level &
18 of 26
25% unrestricted) 36% above ground
level)
Key Project Revisions
Since the initial submittal of the Development Agreement application for the Ocean
Avenue Project in February 2013, the Applicant has received preliminary input from City
staff, community members, and the Architectural Review Board. This feedback was
considered by the Applicant team in conjunction with the Council-adopted regulations
and development standards set forth in the Downtown Community Plan for the
Established Large Sites Overlay.
The Applicant’s updated design concept provides several substantive revisions to the
project that have been informed by initial community and staff input and the DC P’s
urban design framework and site-specific development parameters. This section of the
report provides a conceptual overview of several key changes that characterize the
revised project design.
Reduced Building Height – The revised project includes a podium and central
tower design that is oriented in an east-west direction, with a maximum height of
130’ where 244’ was originally proposed.
To achieve this height reduction, floor area and building mass are redistributed to
other portions of the site with residential buildings ranging from approximately 60’
to 90’ along Santa Monica Boulevard, consistent with the existing development
pattern along the boulevard heading east.
Lower height buildings are maintained on the north side of the site, along Sec ond
Street (residential/commercial) and Ocean Avenue (museum complex).
While not an analytical tool or development standard used in the DCP, the
Applicant has provided an average building height analysis for the project to
demonstrate how ground level open space and a variety of building scales affect
19 of 26
the relationship between height, density, and design (see page 11 of project
plans). The Applicant’s conceptual average building height analysis indicates that
while a maximum height of 130’ in proposed, only 10% of the total site area
would be constructed to that height – and the average building height for the site
as a whole would be 43’-8”.
Revised Massing Strategy – As part of the continuing study of the site design in
response to preliminary input from staff and ARB and the DCP’s standards, the
overall massing strategy has been updated for the residential components (with
ground floor retail) to reduce the perceived scale of the project -site block.
o In concert with the reduced height of the central tower and redistribution of
floor area, the project now incorporates building mass along Santa Monica
Boulevard and Second Street that has been broken down into four distinct
residential buildings in order to:
o Better reflect the block pattern found in the Downtown;
o Accommodate more substantial on-site pedestrian improvements;
o Create a more integrated sequence of open spaces and common
areas throughout the site.
o In conjunction with the building height adjustments noted above, the
revised project includes significant upper-floor modulation to shape the
redistributed building mass in order to:
o Improve the permeability of light and air throughout the site;
o Create visual interest; and
o Create upper level hotel and residential common amenity areas
that also moderate the overall scale of the buildings.
20 of 26
Pedestrian-Oriented Design and Mobility – The revised design concept
incorporates buildings along Santa Monica Boulevard and Second Street that
have been shaped and modulated at the ground level to further improve
pedestrian travel through the site to a variety of programmed areas and to/from
Ocean Avenue.
o The planned reuse and integration of First Court has been modified so
that the first north/south section from Santa Monica Boulevard
(approximately 130’ in length) is open and clear-to-the-sky and provides
connection to an east/west paseo leading to Ocean Avenue. This revision
was accomplished by removing a previously-proposed 2nd floor over the
alley.
o The organization of vehicular circulation and key pedest rian entrances to
the hotel, residential buildings, and observation deck has been revised to
create the following:
o An uninterrupted pedestrian environment along Ocean Avenue and
Santa Monica Boulevard with consolidated vehicle ingress/egress
points on Second Street and via First Court at Arizona Avenue; and
o A stronger relationship between the public realm and the project’s
proposed on-site pedestrian network and ground level open
spaces.
Revised Residential Program – As part of the reallocation of floor area and
overall reduction of approximately 20,000 SF from the original submittal, the
residential program was modified to eliminate the previously-proposed 22
condominium units so that the revised residential program is comprised entirely
of 79 rental units in total.
Conceptual Treatment of Designated Landmarks Buildings – The updated
project design proposes retention and incorporation of the two designated
21 of 26
Landmark buildings as part of the museum complex that will provide a strong
historic and contemporary presence along Ocean Avenue. The Victorian building
is proposed for on-site relocation to the north edge of the site next to the extant
Landmark Gussie Moran House and the Spanish Colonial Revival building would
also be relocated/shifted to the north from its current location.
These on-site relocations would create an open courtyard with the new museum
building in the middle and the Landmark Spanish Colonial Revival Building
forming the south edge of museum campus. This plan would also reinforce th e
historic character of the 1300 Block of Ocean Avenue with the Landmark
Shangri-La Hotel and Gussie Moran House also exemplifying the City’s historic
development pattern on the Avenue.
The overall design concept for the museum will continue to be develo ped and
refined with a focus on how the two historic buildings will physically and visually
be integrated with the new museum structure and how each of the buildings will
retain an individual presence while also creating a harmonious and
complementary cultural campus.
Discussion
Development Agreement Process
Development Agreements are generally considered for complex projects with a
significant scope and scale that current zoning standards may not address, and when
the City has the opportunity to derive substantial community benefits from the project.
The City Council’s Development Agreement processing procedures require a
preliminary concept/float-up discussion by the Architectural Review Board prior to
Planning Commission and Council float-up discussions for certain types of projects in
order to facilitate discussion about urban design and architectural design issues earlier
during the application review process.
22 of 26
Staff and the Applicant both agreed that, while not required, a preliminary discussion by
the Landmarks Commission would also be beneficial as the project moves through the
early review process.
Comments from Council would help to shape and further refine the concept plan, and
inform formulation and evaluation of community benefits, provided Council gives
direction to staff to proceed with project negotiations. There will be no regulatory
decisions made about the Development Agreement Application during the float -up
process.
Preliminary Staff Review
Based on staff’s preliminary review of the new submittal, the revised design relates
substantially better to the property’s unique site conditions in a distinctive and dense
pedestrian environment across from Palisades Park and oriented west to the ocean.
The proposed site design recognizes the urban patterns found in the Downtown District
and complements this setting through building siting and orientation; building mass
modulation applied - in particular - to the residential buildings; location of uses and
program; and preservation and adaptive reuse of two designated City Landmark
buildings. In addition, of particular importance are the revisions that have been made to
the project’s ground level open spaces and pedestrian circulation network. As shown in
the Exhibit 1, the revised design incorporates open spaces and pedestrian paseos and
paths that are more visually accessible from the street, user-friendly, and connected to
the streetscape, in comparison to the Applicant’s 2013 submittal.
23 of 26
Exhibit 1. Comparison of Revised Plan (above) and 2013 Plan (below)
Key Issues for Consideration
This preliminary review provides an opportunity for the Council to provide staff and the
Applicant with feedback and direction regarding the project concept. Consistent with this
framework, the Council may focus its discussion of the revised Ocean Avenue Project
on the following areas:
The degree to which the updated conceptual plan and proposed mix of uses is
consistent with the DCP’s goals and policies that recognize the Downtown
Community Plan area as a high-quality, mixed use district offering opportunities
24 of 26
for housing for people across the income spectrum, jobs, arts and culture, and
community/visitor gathering places.
Discuss whether the project’s scale, proportion, and site design successfully
complement the surrounding neighborhood and broader Downtown District
context.
Identify potential negotiation points and community benefits that would be
appropriate given the specific characteristics of the site and with consideration of
the DCP’s five community benefit priorities: 1) Publicly Accessible Open Space;
2) Affordable Housing; 3) Mobility and Circulation; 4) Cultural Institutions; and 5)
Historic Preservation.
In addition to these issue areas raised for discussion, and with direction to proceed from
the Council, staff’s comprehensive project review and development agreement
negotiations would be conducted with attention to the following:
Delivering sustainable, energy/resource-conserving design and project features.
Ensuring that the project supports the Downtown District’s multi-modal mobility
infrastructure and options, including careful study of the following to ensure
optimal functionality:
o Applicant’s circulation plan with attention to subterranean garage
ingress/egress points on Second Street and proposed changes to First
Court; and
o Applicant’s proposal to accommodate efficient valet service and pick
up/drop area(s) either on private property and/or at the curb along Ocean
Avenue or Second Street utilizing a portion of the public right-of-way.
Further-refining the quality of the project’s site design and relationship to the
Downtown District’s public realm.
Further developing the treatment approach for the two on-site designated City
Landmark buildings to ensure that both buildings will be integral features of the
project; and
25 of 26
Delivering an open space plan that creates community gathering spaces that are
well-integrated with the historic and new architecture, and provides ample
landscape and pedestrian amenities.
Next Steps
Following Council’s discussion and with direction to proceed with the Development
Agreement process, City staff and the Applicant team would review the project feedback
and community benefit recommendations. Substantive project review and
environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), would begin this fall. In the meantime, part of staff’s initial project review will
include consultation with other City divisions and departments that provide substantive
comments on projects going through the development review process. Several
important components of staff’s early project review will include consideration of the
following:
Conclusion of the Landmarks Commission’s July 9, 2018 discussion of the
pending Demolition Permit Application for the 101 Santa Monica Boulevard
building and its decision whether to file a designation application for the building.
Preliminary comments from the City’s Mobility Division and Traffic Management
Division regarding proposed changes to First Court and other parking and
circulation-related project components.
Preliminary comments from the City’s Public Works Department and Office of
Sustainability & the Environment regarding resource recovery and recycling,
utilities, and sustainable design for reducing water and energy consumption.
Development Agreement and community benefit negotiations would follow preliminary
review of the project concept and commencement of environmental review in 2019.
Alternatives
In addition to the recommended action, the Council could consider the following with
respect to the project:
26 of 26
Continue the discussion with the Applicant regarding additional project options.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff costs for the Development Agreement process are paid from application fees.
There are no immediate financial or budgetary impacts to the City in conjunction with
the direction to proceed with Development Agreement negotiations.
Prepared By: Roxanne Tanemori, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Link to Project Information Page Online
B. 101 Santa Monica Blvd HRI Forms
C. Downtown Historic Resources Inventory
D. Chattel Report 101 Santa Monica Blvd
E. Community Members' Comments 5-2-2018
F. 2017 DCP Excerpts Chapters 2A & 4
G. Attachment G1 Ocean Ave Project Plans Part 1
H. Attachment G2 Ocean Ave Project Plans Part 2
I. Attachment G3 Ocean Ave Project Plans Part 3
J. Attachment G4 Ocean Ave Project Plans Part 4
K. Attachment G5 Ocean Ave Project Plans Part 5
L. Attachment H Link to July 25, 2017 DCP Council Staff Report
M. Written Comments
N. Powerpoint Presentation
O. Applicant Powerpoint Presentation
Attachment “A”
Link to Ocean Avenue Project information page on the City’s website:
https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Projects/101-Santa-Monica-Blvd-
Development-Agreement---Ocean-Avenue-Project/
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90401
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HR #
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code DateReviewer
Page of
Resource Name or #:
*
P1.
P2.
Other Identifier:
*
Location:Not for Publication Unrestricted a. County
b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec ;B.M.
c. Address City
d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear feature)Zone ,mE/mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appro
*P3a.Description:(Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
*P3b.Resource Attributes:(List attributes and codes)
*P4.Resources Present:
P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, etc.)
* P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
* P7. Owner and Address:
* P8. Recorded by:(Name, affiliation, address)
* P9. Date Recorded:
* P10. Survey Type:(Describe)
*P11.Report Citation:(Cite survey report/other sources or "none")
*Attachments:NONE
Archaeological Record
Location Map
District Record
Sketch Map
Linear Feature Record
Continuation Sheet
Milling Station Record
Building, Structure, and Object Record
Rock Art Record Artifact Record
Photograph Record Other: (List)
Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
Prehistoric Historic Both
DPR 523A (1/95)* Required Information
5D3
5D1
101 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles
101 Santa Monica Blvd
APN(s): 4291014025
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
4/13/2007
2
Santa Monica
1925
Belle Vue Plaza
233 Wilshire Blvd 990
Santa Monica Ca, 904010000
P. Moruzzi, M. Potter, K. Lain
ICF International
811 W 7th Street, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
1
A.4 - Contributes to a district embodying 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 resource is recorded in the Historic Resources
Inventory with a prior evaluation of 5D1. Also qualifies under local Criterion A.1. Since this property was most recently
surveyed it appears that portions of the storefront cladding have been altered. Nonetheless, the property continues to appear
elgible for listing as a contributor to the "Central Business District" in the City of Santa Monica.
101 Santa Monica Blvd
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*101 Santa Monica Blvd
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Commercial/Store & Residential Building
Architectural Style:Spanish Colonial Revival
Construction History:
Moved?
Related Features:
Architect:
B1.
B2.
B3.B4.
*B5.
*B6.
*B7.
*B8.
B9a.
*B10.
B11.
*B12.
B13.
*B14.
Present Use:Commercial/Store & Residential Building
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Commercial DevelopmentTheme Santa MonicaArea
1925Period of Significance CommercialProperty Type A.4 Applicable Criteria
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes):
References:
Remarks:
Evaluator:P. Moruzzi, M. Potter, K. Lain ICF International
Date of Evaluation:
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch map with north arrow required)
Basten, Fred. 'Santa Monica Bay: Paradise By the Sea'; Los Angeles
County Tax Assessor Records; McAlester, Virginia and Lee. 'A Field Guide
to American Houses;' Sanborn Maps. Santa Monica City Building Permits.
Santa Monica Public Library Collections.
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Primary #
HR #
NRHP Status Code 5D3 22
City of Santa Monica
Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update
Downtown Community Plan Area
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development
Prepared by:
Pasadena, California
April 10, 2017
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update April 10, 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
1331 7th Street 1953 5S3*
1444 7th Street Fire Station No. 1 1954 J.H. Melstrom 5S3
1457 7th Street Poptsis Realty 1922 5S3
520 Arizona Ave.1947 5S3*
604 Arizona Ave.; 1301
6th Street 1950 A.C. Martin 5S3
625 Arizona Ave.; 1256
7th Street
Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Santa
Monica Exchange
1938 G.R. Morrison 5S3
720 Arizona Ave.1922 5S3
127 Broadway Whitworth Block 1920 5S3
201 Broadway Carmel Hotel 1928 Kenneth
MacDonald, Jr. 5S3
631 Broadway 1937 5S3
719 Broadway 1923 George Kew 5S3
516 Colorado Ave.
Dr. Nathaniel Kuns
Residence; Angels’
Attic
1897
3S;
3CS;
5S3
528 Colorado Ave.1910 5S3
1255 Lincoln Blvd. Ernie White Insurance
Building 1965 Weldon J. Fulton 5S3
1670 Lincoln Blvd.
Penguins; The
Penguin; Penguin
Coffee Shop
1959 Armét & Davis 5S3
1221 Ocean Ave. Champagne Towers;
Lawrence Welk Plaza 1971
Daniel, Mann,
Johnson and
Mendenhall
5S3
1431 Ocean Ave.Pacific Plaza 1963 John C. Lindsay 5S3
101‐117 Santa Monica
Blvd. 1925 A.H. O’Brien 5S3
401‐409 Santa Monica
Blvd. Security Building 1925 5S3*
502‐516 Santa Monica
Blvd. Pacific Building 1924 5S3
City of Santa Monica
Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update
Downtown Community Plan Area
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development
Prepared by:
Pasadena, California
July 2017
Arcadia Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
Project Overview and Scope ..................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the Survey Area ................................................................................................................. 2
Previous Designations and Surveys .......................................................................................................... 2
Designated Resources ............................................................................................................................... 3
II. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 5
Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Archival Research .................................................................................................................................. 6
Reconnaissance Survey ......................................................................................................................... 7
Historic Context Statement ................................................................................................................... 7
Field Documentation and Property Database ...................................................................................... 8
California Historical Resource Status Codes ............................................................................................. 9
Resource Categories ............................................................................................................................... 10
III. REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION .......................................................... 12
National Register of Historic Places ........................................................................................................ 12
California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................................................. 14
Santa Monica Eligibility Criteria .............................................................................................................. 15
IV. SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 18
Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................... 18
Individually Eligible Resources ................................................................................................................ 19
Non-Building Resources .......................................................................................................................... 20
Previous HRI Properties .......................................................................................................................... 23
V. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Selected Sections of Historic Context Statement
Appendix B: Property Spreadsheet
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
I. INTRODUCTION
Project Overview and Scope
In July 2015, the City of Santa Monica (the City) retained Architectural Resources
Group (ARG) and Historic Resources Group (HRG) to conduct a Citywide Historic
Resources Inventory Update (referred to herein as “HRI Update”) for Santa
Monica. By establishing a comprehensive list of the city’s potential historic
resources, the HRI Update serves as a valuable information tool that can help to
guide planning and land use decisions. The last comprehensive update of Santa
Monica’s historic resources inventory occurred between 2006 and 2010 and
included the evaluation of existing and previously unidentified historic resources
constructed through 1968. The scope of this HRI Update is to survey all previously
identified historic resources, identify previously unrecorded individual resources
and historic districts in the city constructed through 1977, and evaluate potential
historic resources against federal, state, and local eligibility criteria.
Between 2012 and 2016, the City updated and revised its Downtown Specific
Plan, now formally known as the Downtown Community Plan (DCP), in
accordance with the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of its General
Plan.1 In June 2016, City of Santa Monica Planning Division staff directed ARG and
HRG to expedite the intensive level survey of properties located within the DCP
area, so that survey results would be available to inform the DCP update in
advance of the HRI Update projected completion date of summer 2017. Like the
Citywide HRI Update, the scope of this DCP area survey included the evaluation of
all previously identified historic resources found within the DCP’s new
boundaries, including those properties previously found to constitute a
potentially eligible historic district located within the city’s Central Business
District. The survey also included the identification and evaluation of previously
unrecorded resources in this area. The following report includes a summary of the
project team’s methodology, selected sections of the citywide historic context
statement that are applicable to the DCP area (attached as Appendix A), and a
summary of the survey findings.
It is important to note that this report merely summarizes the findings of the
Citywide HRI Update, which is not yet complete, as they pertain specifically to the
DCP area. The excerpts of the historic context statement provided herein are
included for reference but are still in draft form. For a comprehensive description
1 City of Santa Monica, “Release Notes: The Downtown Community Plan, 2016 Plan Update” (Santa
Monica, CA: Planning & Community Development, 2016).
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2
of the HRI Update, including project scope and methodology, historic context
statement, and summary of findings, the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory
Update Report should be consulted. That document is projected to be completed
in summer 2017.
All phases of this project were conducted by ARG and HRG personnel (referred to
herein as “Project Team”) who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards in Architectural History and History.2
Description of the Survey Area
The Downtown Community Plan area is located in the westernmost section of the
City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west
and the City of Los Angeles on the north, south, and east. Abutting the city limits
are the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades on the north, Brentwood
and Sawtelle on the east, and Venice on the south. The DCP is located just north
of the Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10). It is generally bounded by Wilshire
Boulevard on the northwest, Lincoln Boulevard on the northeast, the Santa
Monica Freeway on the southeast, and Ocean Avenue on the southwest. The area
contains 512 parcels that consist primarily of mixed-use commercial properties.
Like the rest of the city, the DCP area adheres to a generally rectilinear street grid
that is oriented askew of the cardinal directions and adheres to a northwest-
southeast axis. The topography of the area is predominantly flat.
Previous Designations and Surveys
Santa Monica has commissioned six historic resource surveys or historic resource
inventory updates in the past: 1983, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2004, and 2010. Most
recently, in 2010, ICF Jones & Stokes completed a Citywide Historic Resources
Inventory Update. As part of this scope, the firm re-surveyed properties within
the current boundaries of the DCP. At that time, 50 properties were found to be
individually significant historic resources through survey evaluation; of those, 16
properties were already listed in the City’s local register. The survey also re-
evaluated the Central Business District Historic District, which was originally
identified in the 1983 survey, and documented 69 district contributors
(approximately 32 of the contributors were also found to be individually eligible
2 The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards were developed by the
National Park Service. For further information on the Standards, please refer to
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3
historic resources).3 The 2010 findings for the downtown area were used to
update the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). However, the Central
Business District Historic District was not formally adopted as a historic district by
the City of Santa Monica, though several individually eligible properties identified
in the survey have since been designated as local landmarks.
Designated Resources
The project team reviewed the City’s HRI and the California Historical Resources
Inventory and concluded that, at present, there are 30 designated resources in
the DCP area.4 All of these designated resources are listed in the local register.
None of these properties are formally designated in the National Register of
Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. There are currently
no designated historic districts within the limits of the DCP.
Table 1, below, summarizes all designated historic resources that are located in
the DCP area.
Table 1. Designated Resources
Address/Location Name Year
Built Architect Status Code
West corner of
5th Street and
Santa Monica
Blvd.
Oregon Avenue
Sidewalk Sign West
Pre-
1912 5S1
1305 2nd Street
Mar Vista
Apartments; Mar
Vista Hotel
1914 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1438-1440 2nd
Street Rapp Saloon 1875 3S; 3CS; 5S1
3 The current Property Database identifies only 67 properties that were originally contributors to
this district. In the 2010 survey, two of the district’s contributors were recorded as two separate
buildings, resulting in four different records in that survey’s database. The current project team has
consolidated these records and recorded each as one individual property in the Property Database,
which accounts for the discrepancy in district contributors.
4 The California Historical Resources Inventory database is a comprehensive listing of all properties,
statewide, that have been evaluated for historic significance. More information regarding this
database is provided in the State Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Bulletin #8:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4
1202 3rd Street
(Promenade) J.C. Penney 1949 Milton L.
Anderson 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1210 4th Street Santa Monica Bay
Woman’s Club 1914 Henry C.
Hollwedel 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1422 4th Street Central Tower 1929 M. Eugene
Durfee 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1455 4th Street Lido Hotel 1931 Harbin F. Hunter 5S1
1503 4th Street Builder’s Exchange
Building 1927 M. Eugene
Durfee 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1248 5th Street
United States Post
Office; 5th Street
Post Office
1937 Robert Dennis
Murray 3S; 3CS; 5S1
227 Broadway Keller Block 1898 Carroll H. Brown 3CS; 5S1
302 Colorado
Ave.
Sears; Sears
Roebuck; Sears
Main Building; Sears
Department Store
1947 Rowland H.
Crawford 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1133 Ocean Ave. Miramar Moreton
Bay Fig Tree
Pre-
1900 5S1
1301 Ocean Ave. Shangri-La Hotel;
The Shangri-La 1940 William E. Foster 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1323 Ocean Ave.
Gussy Moran House;
Gertrude Moran
House
1891 3S; 3CS; 5S1
1333 Ocean Ave. Victorian House 1906 5S1
1337 Ocean Ave. 1926 5S1
1415 Ocean Ave. Georgian Hotel; The
Georgian 1931 M. Eugene
Durfee 5S1
1450 Ocean Ave
Palisades Park;
Senior Recreation
Center/Camera
Obscura
Various
Weldon J. Fulton
(Camera
Obscura)
5S1
208-210 and 212-
216 Santa
Monica Blvd.
Mayfair Theatre;
Majestic Theatre
1911;
1929
Henry C.
Hollwedel 5S1
212-216 Santa
Monica Blvd.
Mayfair Theatre
Terrazzo 1929 5S1
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5
221-225 Santa
Monica Blvd.
Bay Cities Guaranty
Building; Crocker
Bank; Clock Tower
Building
1931 Walker and Eisen 3S; 3CS; 5S1
301 Santa Monica
Blvd. Junipher Building 1911 A.C. Martin 5S1
100 Santa Monica
Pier Santa Monica Pier 1909 5S1
200 Santa Monica
Pier
Santa Monica Pier
Sign 1941 5S1
101 Wilshire
Blvd.
Palisades Building;
Miramar Hotel 1924 William Ache 5S1
310-312 Wilshire
Blvd. Edwin Building 1928 Paul R. Williams 3S; 3CS; 5S1
311 Wilshire
Blvd. 1930 Irvin Goodfellow 5S1
433 Wilshire
Blvd. Zucky’s Wall Sign 1962 5S1
507-517 Wilshire
Blvd. 1940 W. Douglas Lee 5S1
702-710 Wilshire
Blvd.
Santa Monica
Professional
Building
1928 A.E. Harvey 3S; 3CS; 5S1
II. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Project Scope
The scope of this project included a historic resources survey of all built resources
within the limits of Santa Monica’s Downtown Community Plan area that were
constructed from the community’s initial development period through 1977. The
end date of 1977 was mutually decided upon by ARG, HRG, and City staff, and
ensured that the survey could sufficiently capture potentially-eligible resources
that are 40 years of age or older. All property types were included in the project
scope. Approximately 512 parcels within the city limits were evaluated by the
survey team, with the exception of those containing built resources that were
constructed after 1977.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6
All properties that were previously identified in the 2010 survey were re-
evaluated by the project team as part of this project. Each property was observed
in the field, photographed, and its major alterations noted during the
reconnaissance survey. The project team also identified additional properties that
were not recorded in the previous survey, many of which were built after 1968,
the end date of the previous survey.
Methodology
To ensure that the methodology described herein incorporated the most up-to-
date standards and was rooted in professional best practices, the project team
consulted the following informational materials maintained by the National Park
Service (NPS) and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP):
• National Register Bulletin (NRB) 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation
• NRB 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form
• NRB 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property
Documentation Form
• NRB 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning
• California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP): Writing Historic Contexts
• OHP: Instructions for Recording Historical Resources
Archival Research
The project team conducted primary and secondary source research in order to
inform the writing of the historic context statement and provide valuable
property-specific information for the survey. Research included the overview of
pertinent city planning documents (municipal codes and planning reports);
primary source materials (historic photographs, maps, building permits); and
secondary source materials (newspaper articles, local published histories).
The following collections were consulted:
• Collections of the Santa Monica Library
• Collections of the Los Angeles Public Library
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7
• The project team’s in-house library of architectural reference books,
journals, and other materials
• Various internet sites and digital archives
• City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Services Division for
building and alteration permits
• Historic Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
• Historic tract maps from the Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey is an essential component in the preparation of a historic
context statement, as it informs the project team about a city’s patterns of
development and major and minor physical components, as well as enables a
street-by-street look at all of the city’s resources at once for effective
comparative analysis.
Prior to reconnaissance, the project team used the City’s Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) data, supplemented by Los Angeles County Assessor data, to
develop a map that color-coded all of the city’s parcels by decade of
development. This “chronology map” helped to identify broad development
patterns in the survey area and locate groupings of properties that might be
unified by age and appearance. The map also identified all buildings constructed
after 1977, which were not included as part of the survey. During the
reconnaissance survey, each street in the DCP area was driven and a “windshield”
inspection was conducted. The general age of buildings, property types,
architectural styles, and levels of integrity were noted and compared. Based upon
observations made during reconnaissance, the survey team developed a list of
properties and resources that appeared to be potentially significant and merited
further research. The project team completed its reconnaissance survey of the
DCP area in July 2016.
Historic Context Statement
Concurrent with the reconnaissance survey, the project team drafted a citywide
historic context statement. The context statement was prepared in accordance
with the Multiple Property Documentation (MPD) approach developed by the
NPS. Often applied to large-scale surveys, the MPD approach streamlines the
evaluation process by distilling major patterns of development into discernible
themes that are shared by multiple properties within a given survey area. Utilizing
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8
the MPD approach ensures that properties with shared associative qualities
and/or architectural attributes are evaluated in a consistent manner.5 The context
statement for Santa Monica is organized into a sequential series of contexts and
themes, which capture major occurrences in the city’s development history and
are expressed in its built resources. Baseline eligibility standards and integrity
thresholds were constructed for each theme, allowing surveyors to make
informed and consistent determinations of eligibility. The context statement is
also intended to serve as a resource for future land use decisions and
preservation endeavors undertaken by the City.
The Historic Context Statement pertains to the entire city. Excerpts of this
document are included as Appendix A of this report. The abbreviated historic
context statement provided herein includes excerpts of contexts and themes that
are specifically applicable to those properties identified as eligible resources
within the DCP area.
Field Documentation and Property Database
Upon completion of the reconnaissance survey and preparation of a draft historic
context statement, resources that had been preliminarily identified during the
reconnaissance survey were subjected to more focused, property-specific
research. These properties were then documented and evaluated against
eligibility criteria for the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historical Resources, and Santa Monica’s local designation program.
Field documentation for the DCP area was completed in February 2017. All
evaluations were completed from the public-right-of-way by vehicle or on foot.
Data gathered in the documentation phase were collected digitally and compiled
into a customized Access database (referred to herein as the “Property
Database”).6 Data entered into the Property Database includes address/location,
year built, architectural style, architect (when known), alterations, summary
statement of significance, and California Historical Resource Status Code(s).
Character-defining features (CDFs) were recorded only for properties that had not
been identified and evaluated in previous surveys.
5 For more information on the MPD approach, please refer to NRB 16B: How to Complete the
National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form:
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16b/nrb16b_IIintroduction.htm.
6 The digital Property Database was compiled in lieu of hard-copy California Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. The Property Database includes the same baseline
information about identified resources that is typically conveyed in DPR 523 forms.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9
California Historical Resource Status Codes
First adopted in 1975 and amended in 2003, the California Historical Resource
Status Codes (referred to herein as “status codes”) are a systematic means of
classifying historical resources that are evaluated either in a historic resource
survey or as part of a regulatory process.7 Each status code assigned to a given
resource conveys two key pieces of information: (1) a classification code that
signifies at which designation level (federal, state, or local) the resource is
determined eligible, if at all; and (2) a qualifier that indicates under which
program the evaluation was triggered. Resources and their associated status
code(s) are subsequently inputted into the state’s Historic Resources Inventory
(HRI) database for reference.
Various elaborations of the status codes exist, some of which are rarely used or
are not applicable to this project. Listed below are the status codes that ARG used
to evaluate Santa Monica’s built resources.
CODE DESCRIPTION
3S Appears eligible for the National Register (NR) as an individual property
through survey evaluation.
3CS Appears eligible for the California Register (CR) as an individual property
through survey evaluation.
5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing/designation through survey
evaluation.
3CD Appears eligible for the California Register (CR) as a contributor to a CR eligible
district through survey evaluation.
5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a district eligible for local listing/designation
through survey evaluation.
3CB Appears eligible for the California Register (CR) both individually and as a
contributor to a CR eligible district through survey evaluation.
5B
Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as
a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible,
or appears eligible through survey evaluation.
6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR, or local designation through survey evaluation.
6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government
review process, but may warrant special consideration in local planning
7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated.
In addition to the aforementioned Status Codes, the City of Santa Monica also
utilizes the code 5S3*, applied to properties that appear to be individually eligible
for local listing/designation as a Structure of Merit through survey evaluation.
7 For more information about status codes and their application, please refer to the OHP’s Technical
Assistance Bulletin #8: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10
Resource Categories
In addition to individual buildings, the survey team evaluated various other
resource types, all of which are significant elements of Santa Monica’s built
environment and help to tell the story of the community’s development history.
Following are definitions of the different resource types that have been
identified: 8
• Buildings are erected to shelter some aspect of human habitation. As
buildings are the foundation of a developed area such as Santa Monica,
they represent a very common resource type. They house a variety of
residential, commercial, and institutional uses.
• Structures are also substantive constructions composed of structural
elements, but unlike buildings they serve a purpose aside from human
habitation. Common examples of structures identified in a historic
resource survey include bridges, tunnels, gazebos, dams, and lighthouses.
• Objects are differentiated from structures in that they are either
decorative in nature, or are comparatively small and simply constructed.
Resources such as signs, fountains, monuments, sculptures, public art
installations, and street lamps are typically classified as objects.
• Sites are defined as areas that possess historic or cultural value and
whose significance is not related to any building, structure, or object that
may (or may not) be present. Some common examples include
archaeological sites, natural features, parks, and designed landscapes.
• Historic Districts are identifiable areas that are related geographically and
by theme. Districts are significant for the interrelationship between their
resources and consist of historically and/or functionally related
properties. Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and
institutional campuses are examples of resources that may be recorded
as historic districts.
• District Contributors and Non-Contributors refer to the buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and other features that are located within the
boundaries of a historic district. Generally speaking, contributors help to
convey the significance of the district. Non-contributors, on the other
8 These resource categories and descriptions are derived from NRB 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. For more information, please refer to
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11
hand, are identified as such because they been extensively altered or
were built outside of the district’s historic period (known as the period of
significance).
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12
III. REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
All properties within the scope of this survey were evaluated against federal
(National Register), state (California Register), and local (City of Santa Monica
Landmark and Structure of Merit) designation criteria. The programs and their
associated criteria are described below beginning with the National Register,
whose policies set the conceptual framework for state and local programs.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s master
inventory of known historic resources. Created under the auspices of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is administered by the
National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects,
and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or
cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. As described in National
Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, in
order to be eligible for the National Register, a resource must both: (1) be
significant, and (2) retain sufficient integrity to adequately convey its significance.
Significance is assessed by evaluating a resource against established criteria for
eligibility. A resource is considered significant if it satisfies any one of the
following four National Register criteria:9
• Criterion A (events): associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
• Criterion B (persons): associated with the lives of significant persons in
our past;
• Criterion C (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a
master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction;
• Criterion D (information potential): has yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
9 Some resources may meet multiple criteria, though only one needs to be satisfied for National
Register eligibility.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13
Once significance has been established, it must then be demonstrated that a
resource retains enough of its physical and associative qualities – or integrity – to
convey the reason(s) for its significance. Integrity is best described as a resource’s
“authenticity” as expressed through its physical features and extant
characteristics. Generally speaking, if a resource is recognizable as such in its
present state, it is said to retain integrity, but if it has been extensively altered
then it does not. Whether a resource retains sufficient integrity for listing is
determined by evaluating the seven aspects of integrity defined by the NPS:
• Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred);
• Setting (the physical environment of a historic property);
• Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property);
• Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during
a particular period of time and in a particular manner or configuration to
form a historic property);
• Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture
or people during any given period in history or prehistory);
• Feeling (a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time);
• Association (the direct link between an important historic event/person
and a historic property).
Integrity is evaluated by weighing all seven of these aspects together and is
ultimately a “yes or no” determination – that is, a resource either retains
sufficient integrity, or it does not.10 Some aspects of integrity may be weighed
more heavily than others depending on the type of resource being evaluated and
the reason(s) for its significance. Since integrity depends on a resource’s
placement within a historic context, integrity can be assessed only after it has
been concluded that the resource is in fact significant.
Generally, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in
the National Register. Exceptions are made if it can be demonstrated that a
resource less than 50 years old is (1) of exceptional importance, or (2) is an
integral component of a historic district that is eligible for the National Register.
10 Derived from NRB 15, Section VIII: “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property.”
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an
authoritative guide that is used to identify, inventory, and protect historical
resources in California. Established by an act of the State Legislature in 1998, the
California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of
significant architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural resources; identifies
these resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for
state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).11
The structure of the California Register program is similar to that of the National
Register, but places its emphasis on resources that have contributed specifically
to the development of California. To be eligible for the California Register, a
resource must first be deemed significant under one of the following four criteria,
which are modeled after the National Register criteria listed above:
• Criterion 1 (events): associated with events or patterns of events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2 (persons): associated with the lives of persons important to
local, California, or national history;
• Criterion 3 (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of
a master, or possesses high artistic values;
• Criterion 4 (information potential): has yielded, or has the potential to
yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area,
state, or the nation.
Mirroring the National Register, the California Register also requires that
resources retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing. A resource’s integrity
is assessed using the same seven aspects of integrity used for the National
Register. However, since integrity thresholds associated with the California
Register are generally less rigid than those associated with the National Register,
it is possible that a resource may lack the integrity required for the National
Register but still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Certain properties are automatically listed in the California Register, as follows:12
11 For more information on the California Register program, please refer to the OHP’s website:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238.
12 California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1, Article 2, § 5024.1.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15
• All California properties that are listed in the National Register;
• All California properties that have formally been determined eligible for
listing in the National Register (by the State Office of Historic
Preservation);
• All California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and above; and
• California Points of Historical Interest which have been reviewed by the
State Office of Historic Preservation and recommended for listing by the
State Historical Resources Commission.
Unlike the National Register, there is no strict 50-year age requirement associated
with the California Register; rather, it must be demonstrated that sufficient time
has passed to understand the historical importance of a resource.
Santa Monica Eligibility Criteria
The treatment and management of historic resources in Santa Monica is
addressed in Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts) of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code (referred to herein as the “Ordinance”). Adopted by the City
Council in 1976, the Ordinance set into motion a historic preservation program
consisting of various preservation incentives and regulations; a means of
inventorying Santa Monica’s known historic resources (called the Historic
Resources Inventory or HRI); and a set of criteria and procedures wherein historic
resources could be designated at the municipal level and listed in the HRI. In
Santa Monica, resources can be individually designated as Landmarks or
Structures of Merit, or collectively designated as Historic Districts.
Landmarks are defined by the city as “any improvement which has been
designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical preservation,” and
include buildings, structures, places, sites, works of art, and landscape features.13
Landmarks are considered to have the highest level of local historical or
architectural significance. The Ordinance defines six general criteria to determine
whether resources qualify for local designation as a Landmark. The City’s
Landmarks Commission may approve Landmark designation if a resource meets
one or more of the following criteria, outlined in Ch. 9.56.100 (A) of the
Ordinance:
13 Santa Monica Municipal Code, Ch. 9.56.030 (Definitions).
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16
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, a community or
the City.
While Landmarks are held to the highest level of historical or architectural
significance locally, Structures of Merit are recognized historic resources that are
determined to have a limited degree of individual significance. The City’s
Landmarks Commission may approve a Structure of Merit designation if it
determines that it merits official recognition because it meets one or more of the
following characteristics, outlined in Ch. 9.56.080 of the Ordinance:
A. The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory.
B. The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
1. [It] is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail
or historical type.
2. [It] is representative of a style in the City that is no longer
prevalent.
3. [It] contributes to a potential Historic District.
The Ordinance defines a Historic District as “any geographic area or
noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties which the City Council
has designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17
preservation.”14 A Historic District may be designated if it meets one or more of
the following criteria, as outlined in Ch. 9.56.100 (B) of the Ordinance:
1. Any of the Landmark criteria identified in Ch. 9.56.100 (A).
2. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a
definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic
sites, which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan,
physical development or architectural quality.
3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated
with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation
modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning.
4. 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 Ordinance, as written, does not address the issue of integrity. The project
team used the National/California Register guidelines on integrity when
evaluating resources’ eligibility for local listing in accordance with
professional best practices.
14 Santa Monica Municipal Code, Ch. 9.56.030 (Definitions).
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18
IV. SURVEY FINDINGS
Summary of Findings
Using the aforementioned methodology, field surveyors identified a total of 78
resources in Santa Monica’s DCP area that appear eligible for listing in the
National Register, California Register, and/or Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory; of these, 30 are already locally designated and were not re-evaluated.
Of the remaining 48 identified eligible resources, 46 are individual buildings and
two are non-building resources (structures). The project team identified eight
properties that had not been identified or evaluated in previous surveys. A
summary table of individually eligible resources is included at the end of this
section (Table 2).
As part of this DCP survey, the survey team concluded that the previously
identified Central Business Historic District no longer retains sufficient integrity to
be eligible as a historic district. The area no longer contains a cohesive
concentration of historic or architecturally significant properties that are unified
aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality. Properties
that were previously identified as contributors to this district were evaluated for
individual eligibility against local, state, and federal criteria. Eleven of these
properties appear to no longer satisfy registration requirements for federal, state,
and/or local eligibility, and are included in the Property Database as having been
previously identified but no longer meeting eligibility criteria (these are given the
status code 6L). A summary table of all identified resources is included at the end
of this section (Table 3).15
Due to increased development of the Central Business District and the larger
downtown area, 10 previously identified resources in the DCP no longer retain
sufficient integrity for listing or have been demolished altogether.
Data associated with each identified resource have been compiled into an Access
database known as the Property Database; an Excel spreadsheet version is
included as Appendix B of this report.
15 The Property Database includes 89 identified properties in the DCP area: 78 individually
eligible resources (48 of which are not currently designated) and eleven resources that no
longer meet eligibility criteria, but still merit consideration in local planning and will
remain on the HRI with a status code of 6L. The 48 non-designated, individually eligible
resources (5S3/5S3*) and the eleven ineligible resources (6L) identified in the survey are
listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, of this report.
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19
Individually Eligible Resources
The DCP survey identified 46 buildings that were evaluated for their individual
merit. Consistent with the DCP’s commercial character, most of the buildings
identified as individually eligible (32) are commercial properties. Most individual
commercial properties identified through the survey were found significant for
their association with the early development and expansion of the city’s original
commercial center (pre-1920); development patterns reflecting the period
between the prosperous 1920s and the United States’ entry into World War II
(1920-1941); and increased development in the postwar period, reflecting
expansion outside the original commercial center (1941-1977). Many of these
properties are retail storefronts, mixed-use buildings, or offices. Several of these
properties are also significant for their architectural merit, mostly as excellent
examples of 1920s and 1930s Period Revival styles such as Italian Renaissance
Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Tudor Revival, and early Modern styles such
as Art Deco and Streamline Moderne.
Seven residential properties were identified as individually eligible. Most of these
are single-family residences that were built in the 1910s and 1920s and represent
downtown Santa Monica’s earliest patterns of residential development. These
properties generally consist of modest dwellings that are designed in the
Craftsman and American Colonial Revival styles. Only one single-family residence
dates to the nineteenth century (Dr. Nathaniel Kuns Residence, 1897); it was
evaluated as significant for its association with early residential development and
also for its architectural merit. The remaining two properties are large scale, high-
density multi-family buildings that were constructed after World War II, and are
significant for both the quality of their architecture and for their association with
postwar patterns of residential development.
Public and private institutional properties accounted for six of the individual
resources identified in the survey. Three of these properties are associated with
downtown Santa Monica’s development in the prewar period. Two are excellent
examples of telephone buildings, notable for their association with the area’s
local telecommunications network; and the third was originally the headquarters
of influential local newspaper, the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, which is
significant for its association with the city’s institutional history and for the quality
of its architecture. Two of the postwar institutional resources identified through
the survey are religious properties that are significant as excellent examples of
their respective architectural styles. The third postwar resource is a fire station,
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20
which is notable for its association with the expansion of Santa Monica’s
municipal services in the postwar period and for the quality of its architecture.
Only one industrial property was identified as individually eligible. It was found
significant as reflecting early patterns of industrial development in Santa Monica.
Non-Building Resources
Two non-building resources were identified through the survey: a concrete tunnel
and a concrete bridge. Both are associated with the expansion of civic and
infrastructure improvements as Santa Monica’s population grew in the first few
decades of the twentieth century. These structures are notable as rare remaining
examples of Santa Monica’s public and vehicular infrastructure in the pre-World
War II period.
Table 2, below, summarizes properties in the DCP area that were identified as
individually eligible resources in the survey. The table includes all identified
resources in the area, including individual buildings and non-building resources.
Table 2. Individually Eligible Resources
Address/Location Name Year
Built Architect Status
Code
Main St. and Santa
Monica Freeway
(Interstate 10)
Main Street Viaduct 1925 5S3
Western Terminus of
Santa Monica Freeway
(Interstate 10),
beneath Ocean Ave.
and Colorado Ave.
Olympic Tunnel;
McClure Tunnel 1936 5S3
1137 2nd Street 1945 W.D. Coffey
(engineer) 5S3
1308 2nd Street
Christian Institute of
Spiritual Science; The
Christian Institute
1949 5S3
1415-1417 2nd Street 1934 5S3
1227 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1938 5S3*
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
1254 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1937 Norstrom and
Anderson 5S3
1301-1313 3rd Street
(Promenade)
Criterion Theatre and
Apartments 1924 Engineering
Service Company
3S;
3CS;
5S3
1322-1324 3rd Street
(Promenade)
F.W. Woolworth
Building 1949 John J. Gould 5S3*
1336-1338 3rd Street
(Promenade) W.T. Grant Building 1937 Webber and
Nelson 5S3
1349-1351 3rd Street
(Promenade)
S.H. Kress & Co.
Building 1914 E.H. Hoffman 5S3
1354-1356 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1930 5S3*
1148 4th Street 1936 5S3
1227 4th Street St. Augustine By-the-
Sea Episcopal Church 1967
John Detlie
(Daniel, Mann,
Johnson and
Mendenhall)
5S3
1245 4th Street
Santa Monica Evening
Outlook Plant; Unity
by the Sea; St. Peter
and St. Paul Coptic
Orthodox Church
1935 John and Donald
Parkinson
3S;
3CS;
5S3
1301 4th Street Bank of America 1959 F.K. Lesan 5S3*
1330-1334 4th Street 1931 M. Eugene Durfee 5S3
1433-1437 4th Street Tegner Building 1927 Henry C.
Hollwedel 5S3
1443 4th Street 1929 5S3
1327 5th Street 1930 5S3*
1211 6th Street; 606
Wilshire Boulevard
City National Bank
Plaza; Soka Gakkai
International-USA
1964;
1969
Sheldon L. Pollack
Corp. (1969) 5S3
1218 6th Street 1948 5S3
1433 6th Street 1904 5S3
1314 7th Street
Associated Telephone
Company Building;
GTE Building
1937 Maurice Sasso
(engineer) 5S3
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22
1331 7th Street 1953 5S3*
1444 7th Street Fire Station No. 1 1954 J.H. Melstrom 5S3
1457 7th Street Poptsis Realty 1922 5S3
520 Arizona Ave. 1947 5S3*
604 Arizona Ave.; 1301
6th Street 1950 A.C. Martin 5S3
625 Arizona Ave.; 1256
7th Street
Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Santa
Monica Exchange
1938 G.R. Morrison 5S3
720 Arizona Ave. 1922 5S3
127 Broadway Whitworth Block 1920 5S3
201 Broadway Carmel Hotel 1928 Kenneth
MacDonald, Jr. 5S3
719 Broadway 1923 George Kew 5S3
516 Colorado Ave.
Dr. Nathaniel Kuns
Residence; Angels’
Attic
1897
3S;
3CS;
5S3
528 Colorado Ave. 1910 5S3
631 Colorado Ave. 1937 5S3
1255 Lincoln Blvd. Ernie White Insurance
Building 1965 Weldon J. Fulton 5S3
1670 Lincoln Blvd.
Penguins; The
Penguin; Penguin
Coffee Shop
1959 Armét & Davis 5S3
1221 Ocean Ave. Champagne Towers;
Lawrence Welk Plaza 1971
Daniel, Mann,
Johnson and
Mendenhall
5S3
1431 Ocean Ave. Pacific Plaza 1963 John C. Lindsay 5S3
101-117 Santa Monica
Blvd. 1925 A.H. O’Brien 5S3
401-409 Santa Monica
Blvd. Security Building 1925 5S3*
502-516 Santa Monica
Blvd. Pacific Building 1924 5S3
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23
518-522 Santa Monica
Blvd. 1930 Henry C.
Hollwedel 5S3
602-610 Santa Monica
Blvd. 1923 5S3
100 Wilshire Blvd.
General Telephone
Building; Lawrence
Welk Plaza
1971
Daniel, Mann,
Johnson and
Mendenhall
5S3
520 Wilshire Blvd. 1928 5S3
Previous HRI Properties
Four properties were identified in previous surveys as contributors to the former
Central Business District. While they contributed to the scale, continuity, and
character of the former historic district, they do not, on their own, satisfy the
registration requirements for listing as individual resources.
Table 3. Former HRI Properties that no longer meet eligibility criteria (6L)
Address/Location Name Year
Built Architect Status
Code
1216 2nd Street
First Presbyterian
Church Education
Building
1963 6L
1418-1420 2nd Street Eagles Hall 1907 6L
1201 3rd Street
(Promenade)
Ralph’s Grocery
(Barnes and Noble;
Europa)
1935 Morgan, Walls
and Clements 6L
1237-1239 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1954 Joseph Halpern 6L
1242-1246 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1937 Norstrom and
Anderson 6L
1352-1360 3rd Street
(Promenade) Bank of Italy 1929 Krempel and
Erkes 6L
1429 3rd Street
(Promenade) 1913 6L
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 24
1452 2nd Street 1922 6L
1231-1235 4th Street 1946 6L
510 Arizona Ave. 1956 6L
317-335 Wilshire
Blvd., 325-329
Wilshire Blvd.
1925 Paul R. Williams 6L
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update July 2017
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 25
V. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 16
National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criterion for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1990.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16b: How to Complete the
National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1991.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 39: Researching a Historic
Property. Prepared by Eleanor O’Donnell. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1991.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys:
A Basis for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1977.
National Park Service. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying
the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character.
Prepared by Lee H. Nelson. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
1988.
16 A complete bibliography will be included in the final Citywide Historic Context Statement pending
its completion, projected for summer 2017.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
We
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
5
t
h
S
t
a
n
d
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
Pr
e
‐
1
9
1
2
Or
e
g
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
S
i
g
n
W
e
s
t
5S1; 5D3 5S1 The Oregon Avenue Sidewalk Sign West is designated a s a Santa Monica Landmark.
13
0
5
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
1
4
Ma
r
V
i
s
t
a
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
;
M
a
r
V
i
s
t
a
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ho
t
e
l
5B 5S1 1305 2nd Street (Mar Vista Apartments) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
14
3
8
2
n
d
S
t
1
4
3
8
‐
1
4
4
0
2
n
d
S
t
1
8
7
5
Ra
p
p
S
a
l
o
o
n
5S1; 3S; 5D3 5S1 1438 ‐1440 2nd Street (Rapp Saloon) is designated as a Santa Mo nica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
12
0
2
3
r
d
S
t
1
2
0
2
3
r
d
S
t
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
1
9
4
9
M
i
l
t
o
n
L
.
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
J
.
C
.
P
e
n
n
e
y
5S1; 3S; 5D3 5S1 1202 3rd Street (former J.C. Penney Building) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
12
1
0
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
1
4
H
e
n
r
y
C
.
H
o
l
l
w
e
d
e
l
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
a
y
W
o
m
a
n
'
s
C
l
u
b
5S1; 3S; 5D3 5S1 1210 4th Street (Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club Building) is des ignated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
14
2
2
4
t
h
S
t
1
4
1
2
‐
1
4
2
4
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
2
9
M
.
E
u
g
e
n
e
D
u
r
f
e
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
T
o
w
e
r
5B 5S1 1412‐1424 4th Street (Central Tower) is designated as a Santa M onica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
14
5
5
4
t
h
S
t
1
4
4
7
‐
1
4
5
7
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
1
H
a
r
b
i
n
F
.
H
u
n
t
e
r
L
i
d
o
H
o
t
e
l
5S1; 5D3 5S1 1447‐1457 4th Street (Lido Hotel) is designated as a Santa Moni ca Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
15
0
3
4
t
h
S
t
1
5
0
1
‐
1
5
0
9
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
2
7
M
.
E
u
g
e
n
e
D
u
r
f
e
e
A
l
b
e
r
t
M
.
E
a
t
o
n
B
u
i
ld
e
r
'
s
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5B 5S1 1501‐1509 4th Street (Builder's Exchange Building) is designate d as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
12
4
8
5
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
7
R
o
b
e
r
t
D
e
n
n
i
s
M
u
r
r
a
y
J
a
m
e
s
I
.
B
a
r
n
e
s
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
P
os
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
o
s
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
B
;
5
B
5
S
1
1248 5th Street (United States Post Office) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
22
7
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
8
9
8
C
a
r
r
o
l
l
H
.
B
r
o
w
n
K
e
l
l
e
r
B
l
o
c
k
5S1; 5D3 5S1 227 Broadway (Keller Block) is designated as a Santa Monica Lan dmark. It also appears eli g ible for listin g in the California Re g ister.
30
2
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
1
9
4
7
R
o
w
l
a
n
d
H
.
C
r
a
w
f
o
r
d
S
e
a
r
s
;
S
e
a
r
s
R
o
e
b
u
c
k
;
S
e
a
r
s
M
a
i
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
a
r
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
t
o
r
e
5
S
1
;
3
S
;
5
D
3
5
S
1
302 Colorado Avenue (Sears Department Store) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register a nd California Register.
11
3
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
P
r
e
‐
1
9
0
0
Mi
r
a
m
a
r
M
o
r
e
t
o
n
B
a
y
F
i
g
T
r
e
e
5S1 5S1 The Miramar Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 1133 Ocean Avenue is design ated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
13
0
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
4
0
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
E
.
F
o
s
t
e
r
S
h
a
n
g
r
i
‐
L
a
H
o
t
e
l
;
T
h
e
S
h
a
n
g
r
i
‐
La
3S; 5S3 5S1 1301 Ocean Avenue (Shangri‐La Hotel) is designated as a Santa M onica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
13
2
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
8
9
1
Gu
s
s
y
M
o
r
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
;
G
e
r
t
r
u
d
e
M
o
r
a
n
Ho
u
s
e
5S1; 3S 5S1 1323 Ocean Avenue (Gussy Moran House) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
13
3
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
0
6
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
5S1 5S1 1333 Ocean Avenue is designated as a Santa Monica Landmar k.
13
3
7
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
2
6
5S1 5S1 1337 Ocean Avenue is designated as a Santa Monica Landmar k.
14
1
5
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
3
1
M
.
E
u
g
e
n
e
D
u
r
f
e
e
B
a
r
n
e
t
t
S
h
a
p
i
r
o
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
G
e
o
rg
i
a
n
H
o
t
e
l
;
T
h
e
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
n
5S1 5S11415 Ocean Avenue (Georgian Hotel) is designated as a Santa Mon ica Landmark. It appears eligible for listing in the California Register. However, due t o alterations it does not appear to retain sufficient inte g rit y for listin g in the National Re g ister.
14
5
0
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
We
l
d
o
n
J
.
F
u
l
t
o
n
(
C
a
m
e
r
a
Ob
s
c
u
r
a
)
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
P
a
r
k
;
S
e
n
i
o
r
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
/Ca
m
e
r
a
O
b
s
c
u
r
a
3CS; 5S1 5S1 1450 Ocean Avenue (Palisades Park and Camera Obscura) is design ated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also a pp ears eli g ible for listin g on the California Re g ister.
21
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
2
1
2
‐
2
1
6
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
9
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
T
e
g
n
e
r
M
ay
f
a
i
r
T
h
e
a
t
r
e
T
e
r
r
a
z
o
5B 5S1 212‐216 Santa Monica Boulevard (Mayfair Theatre Terrazzo) is de signated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
21
4
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
20
8
‐
2
1
0
a
n
d
2
1
4
‐
2
1
6
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
19
1
1
;
1
9
2
9
H
e
n
r
y
C
.
H
o
l
l
w
e
d
e
l
M
a
y
f
a
i
r
T
h
e
a
t
r
e
;
M
a
j
e
s
t
i
c
T
h
e
a
t
r
e
5B 5S1 208‐216 Santa Monica Boulevard (Mayfair Theatre, Majestic Theat re) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
22
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
2
2
1
‐
2
2
5
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
3
1
W
a
l
k
e
r
a
n
d
E
i
s
e
n
B
a
y
C
i
t
i
e
s
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
;
C
r
o
c
k
e
r
B
a
n
k
C
l
o
c
k
T
o
w
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5S1; 3S; 5D3 5S1221‐225 Santa Monica Boulevard (Bay Cities Guaranty Building) i s designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the Na tional Register and California Re g ister.
30
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
1
1
A
.
C
.
M
a
r
t
i
n
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5B 5S1 301 Santa Monica Boulevard (Juniper Building) is designate d as a Santa Monica Landmark.
10
0
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
P
i
e
r
10
0
‐
4
0
0
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
P
i
e
r
;
We
s
t
e
r
n
t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
o
f
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
19
0
9
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
P
i
e
r
5S1 5S1 The Santa Monica Pier is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
20
0
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
P
i
e
r
1
9
4
1
P
a
n
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
N
e
o
n
S
i
g
n
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
ca
P
i
e
r
S
i
g
n
5S1 200 Santa Monica Pier (Santa Monica Pier Sign) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register a nd California Register.
10
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
1
3
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
2
4
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
A
c
h
e
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
;
M
i
r
a
m
a
r
H
o
t
e
l
5S3 5S1 101 Wilshire Boulevard (Palisades Building) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
31
0
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
3
1
0
‐
3
1
2
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
8
P
a
u
l
R
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
E
d
w
i
n
B
ui
l
d
i
n
g
5S1; 3S; 5D3 5S1 310‐312 Wilshire Boulevard (Edwin Building) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
31
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
3
0
1
‐
3
1
5
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
3
0
I
r
v
i
n
G
o
o
d
f
e
l
l
o
w
C
.
W
.
W
i
ls
o
n
a
n
d
S
o
n
s
,
I
n
c
.
5B 5S1 301‐315 Wilshire Boulevard is designated as a Santa Monica Land mark. It also appears eli g ible for listin g in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
43
3
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
6
2
Zu
c
k
y
'
s
W
a
l
l
S
i
g
n
5S1 5S1 433 Wilshire Boulevard (Zucky's Wall Sign) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
50
7
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
5
0
7
‐
5
1
7
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
4
0
W
.
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
e
e
W
.
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
L
e
e
5S1; 5D3 5S1 507‐517 Wilshire Boulevard is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark.
70
2
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
7
0
2
‐
7
1
0
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
8
A
.
E
.
H
a
r
v
e
y
L
u
t
h
e
r
L
.
M
a
yo
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5S1; 5D3 5S1702‐710 Wilshire Boulevard (Santa Monica Professional Building) is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark. It also appears eligible for listing in the Na tional Register and California Re g ister.
Ma
i
n
S
t
a
n
d
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
(
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
1
0
)
19
2
5
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
V
i
a
d
u
c
t
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
5
S
3
The Main Street Viaduct appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. Constructed circa 1925, the viaduct is a rare remaining example of public infrastructure associated with the pre‐World War II period. It is also notable for its engineering and aesthetic value. The viaduct was constructed over what was orig inally a Pacific Electric Railway streetcar line, and was subsequently incorporated into the route of the Santa Monica Freeway upon its construction in the 1960s.
We
s
t
e
r
n
t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
(
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
10
)
,
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
a
n
d
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
19
3
6
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
T
u
n
n
e
l
M
c
C
l
u
r
e
T
u
n
n
e
l
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
The Olympic Tunnel/McClure Tunnel appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The tunnel is a rare remaining example of vehicular i nfrastructure associated with the pre‐World War II period. Constructed in 1936, it was i ntended to ease the flow of traffic through Santa Monica’s central business district and pl ayed an important role in the development of a coastal highway (now known as the Pacific Coas t Highway). It is also notable for its engineering and aesthetic value. Originally kno wn as the Olympic Tunnel, it was re‐named in 1969 to commemorate Robert McClure, longtime ed itor of the Santa Monica Outlook news p a p er.
PA
G
E
1
O
F
6
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
11
3
7
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
4
5
W
.
D
.
C
o
f
f
e
y
(
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
)
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
S
3
5
S
3
1137 2nd Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1945, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details.
13
0
8
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
4
9
R
o
y
J
.
B
e
c
k
Ch
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
S
p
i
r
i
t
u
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
;
T
h
e
Ch
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D
3
5
S
3
1308 2nd Street (Christian Institute of Spiritual Science) appe ars eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late Moderne architecture as applied to an institutional building. Constructed in 1949, i t exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, com p osition, and architectural details.
14
1
7
2
n
d
S
t
1
4
1
5
‐
1
4
1
7
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
3
4
E
l
m
e
r
B
.
H
a
g
e
r
m
a
n
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
1415‐1417 2nd Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Mo nica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival architectur e as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1934, it exhibits distinctive characte ristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and a rchitectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
12
5
4
3
r
d
S
t
1
2
5
4
3
r
d
S
t
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
1
9
3
7
N
o
r
s
t
r
o
m
a
n
d
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
St
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D
3
5
S
3
1254 3rd Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Streamline Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1937, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details. It is also significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
13
0
1
3
r
d
S
t
13
0
1
‐
1
3
1
3
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
2
4
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Co
m
p
a
n
y
Ve
n
i
c
e
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
T
h
e
a
t
r
e
a
n
d
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
It
a
l
i
a
n
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
Be
a
u
x
A
r
t
s
5
D
3
5
S
3
1301‐1313 3rd Street (Criterion Theatre and Apartments) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed i n 1927, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central busin ess district prior to World War II. In addition to local listing, the property appear s eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
13
3
6
3
r
d
S
t
13
3
6
‐
1
3
3
8
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
3
7
W
e
b
b
e
r
a
n
d
N
e
l
s
o
n
C
.
H
.
T
h
o
m
s
o
n
a
n
d
W
.
L
.
E
a
r
l
y
W
.
T
.
G
r
a
n
t
B
u
i
l
di
n
g
A
r
t
D
e
c
o
5
D
3
5
S
3
1336‐1338 3rd Street (W.T. Grant Building) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Art Deco arch itecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1937, it exhibits distincti ve characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of co mmercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
13
4
9
3
r
d
S
t
13
4
9
‐
1
3
5
1
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
1
4
E
.
H
.
H
o
f
f
m
a
n
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
F
.
L
o
r
s
c
h
S
.
H
.
K
r
e
s
s
&
C
o
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
It
a
l
i
a
n
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
5D3 5S31349‐1351 3rd Street (S.H. Kress and Co. Building) appears elig ible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Italia n Renaissance Revival architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed i n 1914, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central busin ess district in the early decades of the twentieth centur y .
11
4
8
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
6
St
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
B
5
S
3
1148 4th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Streamline Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1936, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
12
2
7
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
6
7
Jo
h
n
D
e
t
l
i
e
(
D
a
n
i
e
l
,
M
a
n
n
,
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
&
M
e
n
d
e
r
h
a
l
l
)
Sa
m
u
e
l
s
o
n
B
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
S
t
.
A
u
g
u
s
t
i
n
e
B
y
‐
t
h
e
‐
S
e
a
E
p
i
s
c
o
p
al
C
h
u
r
c
h
M
i
d
‐
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
S
3
1227 4th Street (St. Augustine‐by‐the‐Sea Episcopal Church) app ears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Mid‐Century Modern architecture as applied to an institutional campus. Constructed in 1967, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property i s also significant as the work of notable architectural firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenh all (DMJM). The campus consists of three adjoining buildings: a sanctuary (north), an educational building (south), and an office and administration building (east).
12
4
5
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
5
J
o
h
n
a
n
d
D
o
n
a
l
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
s
o
n
W
i
l
s
o
n
B
r
o
s
.
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
O
u
t
l
o
o
k
P
l
a
n
t
Un
i
t
y
b
y
t
h
e
S
e
a
;
S
t
.
P
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
.
P
a
u
l
Co
p
t
i
c
O
r
t
h
o
d
o
x
C
h
u
r
c
h
PW
A
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
B
5
S
3
1245 4th Street (Santa Monica Evening Outlook Plant) appears el igible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of PWA Mo derne architecture as applied to an institutional building. Constructed in 1935, it e xhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also si gnificant as the work of notable architects John and Donald Parkinson. Finally, the prop erty is significant for representing broad patterns of institutional history in Santa M onica. It is associated with the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, an influential local newspaper th at operated out of this building between its construction in 1935 and circa 1957. The b uilding was subsequently repurposed into a church. In addition to local listing, the pro perty appears eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register.
13
3
0
4
t
h
S
t
1
3
3
0
‐
1
3
3
4
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
1
M
.
E
u
g
e
n
e
D
u
r
f
e
e
W
.
H
.
W
i
l
s
o
n
Ar
t
D
e
c
o
5
B
5
S
3
1330‐1334 4th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Mo nica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Art Deco architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1931, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details. The property is also significant as the work of notable architect M. Eugene Dur fee. Finally, it is significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped San ta Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
PA
G
E
2
O
F
6
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
14
3
3
4
t
h
S
t
1
4
3
3
‐
1
4
3
7
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
2
7
H
e
n
r
y
C
.
H
o
l
l
w
e
d
e
l
T
e
g
n
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
pa
n
i
s
h
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
Ch
u
r
r
i
g
u
e
r
e
s
q
u
e
5B 5S31433‐1437 4th Street (Tegner Building) appears eligible for lis ting as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Spanish Colon ial Revival/Churriguereque architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1927, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associat ed with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notable architect Henry C. Hollwedel. Finally, it i s significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s c entral business district p rior to World War II.
14
4
3
4
t
h
S
t
1
4
4
1
‐
1
4
4
5
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
2
9
O
t
t
o
K
r
a
u
t
Ar
t
D
e
c
o
It
a
l
i
a
n
Re
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
5D3 5S31441‐1445 4th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Mo nica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Art Deco architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1929, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details. It is also significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
12
1
1
6
t
h
S
t
6
0
6
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
6
4
;
1
9
6
9
Sh
e
l
d
o
n
L
.
P
o
l
l
a
c
k
C
o
r
p
.
(1
9
6
9
)
Ci
t
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
a
n
k
P
l
a
z
a
S
o
k
a
G
a
k
k
a
i
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
‐
U
S
A
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Mo
d
e
r
n
5
S
3
1211 6th Street (City National Bank Plaza) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Corporate Mod ern architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in phases between 1964 (one‐story wings) and 1969 (seven‐story tower), it exhibits distinctive character istics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and a rchitectural details. The property is also significant for representing patterns of high‐rise commercial development that played an important role in shaping Santa Monica’s commerc ial landscape in the post‐World War II p eriod.
12
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
1
9
4
8
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
B
5
S
3
1218 6th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1948, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details.
14
3
3
6
t
h
S
t
1
9
0
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
5
S
3
*
5
S
3
1433 6th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of residential development t hat shaped the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica at the turn‐of‐the‐twentieth centu ry. Constructed in 1904, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of growth.
13
1
4
7
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
7
M
a
u
r
i
c
e
S
a
s
s
o
(
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
)
P
o
z
z
o
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
.
,
L
t
d.
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
G
T
E
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
W
A
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D3 5S31314 7th Street (Associated Telephone Building/GTE Building) ap pears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent exampl e of PWA Moderne architecture as applied to an institutional building. Construct ed in 1937, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property i s also significant for representing broad patterns of institutional history in Santa M onica. Constructed for the Associated Telephone Company, which later became GTE, it is ass ociated with the growth and development of a robust local communications network.
14
4
4
7
t
h
S
t
1
9
5
4
J
.
H
.
M
e
l
s
t
r
o
m
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
1
M
i
d
‐
c
e
n
t
u
r
y
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
S3* 5S31444 7th Street (Fire Station No. 1) appears eligible for listi ng as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Mid‐Century Modern arch itecture as applied to an institutional building. Constructed in 1954, it exhibits distin ctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. The property is also significant for representing broa d patterns of institutional history in Santa Monica. Its construction reflects the expansio n of municipal services in the postwar period, as Santa Monica's population witnessed unpreced ented growth.
14
5
7
7
t
h
S
t
1
9
2
2
Po
p
t
s
i
s
R
e
a
l
t
y
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
B
3
*
5
S
3
1457 7th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of residential development t hat shaped the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twenti eth century. Constructed in 1922, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of g rowth.
60
4
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
1
3
0
1
6
t
h
S
t
1
9
5
0
A
.
C
.
M
a
r
t
i
n
G
e
o
r
g
e
W
.
C
a
r
t
e
r
C
o
.
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D
3
5
S
3
604 Arizona Avenue appears eligible for listing as a Santa Moni ca Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1950, it exhibits distinctive characteristics th at are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectur al details. The property is also significant as the work of notable architect A.C. Martin.
62
5
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
1
2
5
6
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
9
3
8
G
.
R
.
M
o
r
r
i
s
o
n
J
o
h
n
J
.
B
i
t
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
a
n
d
T
e
l
e
g
r
a
p
h
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
625 Arizona Avenue appears eligible for listing as a Santa Moni ca Landmark. The property is significant for representing broad patterns of institutional hi story in Santa Monica. Built in 1938 for the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, this form er telephone exchange building is associated with the growth and development of Santa Monica's public infrastructure p rior to World War II.
72
0
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
1
9
2
2
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
R
e
a
d
y
‐
C
u
t
H
o
m
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
C
r
a
f
t
s
m
a
n
5
S
3
*
5
S
3
720 Arizona Avenue appears eligible for listing as a Santa Moni ca Landmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of residential development t hat shaped the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twenti eth century. Constructed in 1922, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of g rowth.
12
7
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
12
7
‐
1
3
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
;
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
g
a
v
e
t
h
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
o
f
1
1
9
‐
31
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
19
2
0
Wh
i
t
w
o
r
t
h
B
l
o
c
k
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
B
e
a
u
x
A
r
t
s
5
D
3
5
S
3
127‐131 Broadway (Whitworth Block) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district in the ear ly decades of the twentieth century. Constructed in 1920, it is one of relatively few extan t commercial buildings from this formative p eriod of nei g hborhood g rowth.
20
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
9
2
8
K
e
n
n
e
t
h
M
a
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
,
J
r
.
C
a
r
m
e
l
H
o
t
e
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
na
c
u
l
a
r
B
e
a
u
x
A
r
t
s
5
D
3
5
S
3
201 Broadway (Carmel Hotel) appears eligible for listing as a S anta Monica Landmark. The property is significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II. Constructed in 1928, it is one of relatively few extant commercial buildings from this formati ve period of growth. As one of few intact hotels from this period, it also represents patte rns of economic development associated with Santa Monica's early tourism‐driven economy.
71
9
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
9
2
3
G
e
o
r
g
e
K
e
w
M
r
.
M
i
d
d
e
k
a
u
f
f
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
It
a
l
i
a
n
Re
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
5S3719 Broadway appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Lan dmark. The property is significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica's commercial landscape prior to World War II. Constructe d in 1923, it is one of relativel y few extant commercial buildin g s from this formative p eriod of g rowth.
PA
G
E
3
O
F
6
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
51
6
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
1
8
9
7
Dr
.
N
a
t
h
a
n
i
e
l
K
u
n
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
A
n
g
e
l
s
'
A
t
t
i
c
Q
u
e
e
n
A
n
n
e
3
S
;
5
B
5
S
3
516 Colorado Avenue (Dr. Nathaniel Kuns Residence) appears elig ible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Queen Anne architecture as applied to a single‐family residence. Constructed in 1897, it e xhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also si gnificant for conveying patterns of residential development that shaped the Downtown ne ighborhood of Santa Monica at the turn‐of‐the‐twentieth century. It is one of very few extant residential buildings from this formative period of growth. The building ha s since been repurposed for commercial use. In addition to local listing, the property appe ars eligible for listing in the National Re g ister and California Re g ister.
52
8
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
1
9
1
0
Cr
a
f
t
s
m
a
n
5
B
5
S
3
528 Colorado Avenue appears eligible for listing as a Santa Mon ica Landmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of residential developmen t that shaped the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twenti eth century. Constructed in 1910, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of growth. The building has since been repurposed for commercial u se.
63
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
1
9
3
7
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
A
r
t
D
e
c
o
5
S
3
631 Broadway appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Lan dmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica. Constructed in 1937, it is one of relatively few extant industrial buildin g s in the area from the p re‐World War II p eriod.
12
5
5
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
1
9
6
5
W
e
l
d
o
n
J
.
F
u
l
t
o
n
E
r
n
i
e
W
h
i
t
e
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
ng
M
i
d
‐
c
e
n
t
u
r
y
M
o
d
e
r
n
N
e
w
F
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
t
5
S
3
5
S
3
1255 Lincoln Boulevard (Ernie White Insurance Building) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Mid‐Century Modern architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1965, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also si gnificant as the work of notable architect Weldon J . Fulton.
16
7
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
1
9
5
9
A
r
m
e
t
a
n
d
D
a
v
i
s
Pe
n
g
u
i
n
s
;
T
h
e
P
e
n
g
u
i
n
;
P
e
n
g
u
i
n
C
o
f
f
e
e
Sh
o
p
Go
o
g
i
e
5
S
3
5
S
3
1670 Lincoln Boulevard (The Penguin) appears eligible for listi ng as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Googie archit ecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1959, it exhibits distincti ve characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notabl e architects Armet and Davis. Adjacent to the building is a freestanding pole sign with disti nctive geometric forms.
12
2
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
1
9
7
1
Da
n
i
e
l
,
M
a
n
n
,
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
Me
n
d
e
n
h
a
l
l
St
a
l
t
e
,
I
n
c
.
C
h
a
m
p
a
g
n
e
T
o
w
e
r
s
;
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
W
e
l
k
P
l
a
z
a
L
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
S
3
1221 Ocean Avenue (Champagne Towers) appears eligible for listi ng as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late Modern a rchitecture as applied to a multi‐family residential tower. Constructed in 1971, it exhibit s distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, ma ssing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notable architectural firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM). Finally, the property is significant for representing broad patterns of residential development that sha ped Santa Monica in the post‐World War II period. Specifically, its construction reflec ts the influx of high‐rise residential development that occurred along the Santa Monica wa terfront in the 1960s and 1970s. This building and the adjacent commercial tower (100 Wil shire Boulevard) were developed concurrently by bandleader and television impresario Lawrence Welk, who invested heavily in Santa Monica real estate in the post‐World War II period.
14
3
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
J
o
h
n
C
.
L
i
n
d
s
a
y
De
l
E
.
W
e
b
b
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
‐
T
h
o
m
a
s
E
.
Ga
r
c
i
n
,
A
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
z
a
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
S
3
1431 Ocean Avenue (Pacific Plaza) appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Corporate Modern archit ecture as applied to a multi‐family residential tower. Constructed in 1963, it exhibits dist inctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notabl e architect John C. Lindsay and notable builder Del E. Webb. Finally, the property is significa nt for representing patterns of residential development. Sponsored by the Federal Housing Autho rity (FHA) and developed by the Del E. Webb Corporation, a leading purveyor of retiremen t communities, Pacific Plaza became one of the first high‐rise apartment buildings in Southe rn California for retirees, and served as a model for subsequent developments of this type. Its construction also reflects the influx of high‐rise residential development that occurred a long the Santa Monica waterfront in the 1960s and 1970s.
10
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
0
1
‐
1
1
7
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
5
A
.
H
.
O
'
B
r
i
e
n
A
.
V
.
P
e
r
k
i
n
s
o
n
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
101‐117 Santa Monica Boulevard appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Reviva l architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1925, it exhibits distincti ve characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
50
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
5
0
2
‐
5
1
6
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
4
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
It
a
l
i
a
n
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
Be
a
u
x
A
r
t
s
5
D
3
5
S
3
502‐516 Santa Monica Boulevard (Pacific Building) appears eligi ble for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Italia n Renaissance Revival architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed i n 1924, it exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central busin ess district prior to World War II.
51
8
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
5
1
8
‐
5
2
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
3
0
H
e
n
r
y
C
.
H
o
l
l
w
e
de
l
It
a
l
i
a
n
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
v
a
l
5B 5S3518‐522 Santa Monica Boulevard appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Italian Renaissance Rev ival architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1930, it exhibits dist inctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notabl e architect Henry C. Hollwedel. Finally, the property is significant for representing patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to W orld War II.
60
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
6
0
2
‐
6
1
0
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
3
N
.
J
.
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
Tu
d
o
r
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
602‐610 Santa Monica Boulevard appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Tudor Revival architect ure as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1923, it exhibits distincti ve characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of co mmercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
PA
G
E
4
O
F
6
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
10
0
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
7
1
Da
n
i
e
l
,
M
a
n
n
,
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
Me
n
d
e
n
h
a
l
l
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
;
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
We
l
k
P
l
a
z
a
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
S
3
100 Wilshire Boulevard (General Telephone Building) appears eli gible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Late M odern architecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1971, it exhib its distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, ma ssing, composition, and architectural details. The property is also significant as the work of notable architectural firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM). The property is also significant for representing patterns of high‐rise commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s commercial landscape in the post‐World War II period. This buil ding and the adjacent residential tower (1221 Ocean Avenue) were developed concurrent ly by bandleader and television impresario Lawrence Welk, who invested heavily in Sa nta Monica real estate in the post‐World War II period.
52
0
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
5
1
8
‐
5
2
2
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
8
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5B 5S3518‐522 Wilshire Boulevard appears eligible for listing as a Sa nta Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival ar chitecture as applied to a commercial building. Constructed in 1928, it exhibits distincti ve characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, co mposition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing patterns of co mmercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
12
2
7
3
r
d
S
t
1
2
2
7
3
r
d
S
t
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
1
9
3
8
Ar
t
D
e
c
o
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
1227 3rd Street appears eligible for local listing as a Santa M onica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1938, the building is a good example of Art Deco architecture as applied to a commercial building. It also represents patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II. The building does not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but it appea rs eligible as a Structure of Merit.
13
2
2
3
r
d
S
t
13
2
2
‐
1
3
2
4
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
4
9
J
o
h
n
J
.
G
o
u
l
d
F
.
W
.
W
o
o
l
w
o
r
t
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
L
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
1322‐1324 3rd Street (F.W. Woolworth Building) appears eligible for local listing as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1949, the building is a good example of Late Moderne architecture as applied to a commercial building. It al so represents patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s commercial la ndscape in the post‐World War II period. The building does not retain sufficient in tegrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but it a pp ears eli g ible as a Structure of Merit.
13
5
4
3
r
d
S
t
13
5
4
‐
1
3
5
6
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
3
0
Ar
t
D
e
c
o
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
1354‐1356 3rd Street appears eligible for local listing as a Sa nta Monica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1930, the building is a good example of Art Deco architecture as applied to a commercial building. It also represents patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II. The building does not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but it appea rs eligible as a Structure of Merit.
13
0
1
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
5
9
F
.
K
.
L
e
s
a
n
H
.
G
o
l
d
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
B
a
n
k
o
f
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
M
i
d
‐
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
B
5
S
3
*
1301 4th Street appears eligible for local listing as a Santa M onica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1959, the building exhibits some elements that a re commonly associated with Mid‐Century Modern architecture as applied to a commercial building. The building does not rise to the level of significance needed to be eligibl e as a Landmark, but it appears eli g ible as a Structure of Merit.
13
2
7
5
t
h
S
t
1
9
3
0
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
A
r
t
D
e
c
o
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
1327 5th Street appears eligible for local listing as a Santa M onica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1930, the building represents patterns of commer cial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business district prior to World War II. The building does not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but i t appears eligible as a Structure of Merit.
13
3
1
7
t
h
S
t
1
9
5
3
Ne
o
c
l
a
s
s
i
c
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
1331 7th Street appears eligible for local listing as a Santa M onica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1953, the building is a good example of Neoclass ical architecture as applied to a commercial building. The building does not retain sufficie nt integrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but it a pp ears eli g ible as a Structure of Merit.
52
0
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
1
9
4
7
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
v
a
l
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
520 Arizona Avenue appears eligible for local listing as a Sant a Monica Structure of Merit. Constructed in 1947, the building exhibits some elements that a re commonly associated with American Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a com mercial building. The building does not rise to the level of significance needed to b e eligible as a Landmark, but it a pp ears eli g ible as a Structure of Merit.
40
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
4
0
1
‐
4
0
9
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
1
9
2
5
W
.
R
.
F
r
e
e
m
a
n
S
e
c
ur
i
t
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
5
D
3
5
S
3
*
401‐409 Santa Monica Boulevard (Security Building) appears elig ible for local listing as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit. The property represents patter ns of commercial development that shaped Santa Monica’s central business distric t prior to World War II. Constructed in 1925, it is one of relatively few extant commerc ial buildings from this formative period of growth. The building does not retain suffic ient integrity to be eligible as a Landmark, but it a pp ears eli g ible as a Structure of Merit.
12
1
6
2
n
d
S
t
1
2
1
6
‐
1
2
2
0
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
6
3
Fi
r
s
t
P
r
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
C
h
u
r
c
h
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Mi
d
‐
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
M
o
d
e
r
n
5
D
3
6
L
1216‐1220 2nd Street (First Presbyterian Church Education Build ing) was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Hi storic District. However, this area is no longer eligible as a historic district. While the pr operty contributed to the scale, continuity, and character of the former historic district, it d oes not, on its own, appear to satisf y the re g istration re q uirements for local, state, or federal listin g .
14
1
8
2
n
d
S
t
1
4
1
8
‐
1
4
2
0
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
0
7
Ea
g
l
e
s
H
a
l
l
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1418‐1420 2nd Street (Eagles Hall) was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no l onger eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continui ty, and character of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and does not retain sufficient integrity for local, state, or federal listin g .
14
5
2
2
n
d
S
t
1
9
2
2
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
5
D
3
6
L
1452 2nd Street was previously identified as a contributor to t he Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and character of the former historic district, it does not, on its own, appear to satisfy the registration requir ements for local, state, or federal listin g .
12
0
1
3
r
d
S
t
1
2
0
1
3
r
d
S
t
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
1
9
3
5
M
o
r
g
a
n
,
W
a
l
l
s
a
n
d
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
R
a
l
ph
'
s
G
r
o
c
e
r
y
B
a
r
n
e
s
a
n
d
N
o
b
l
e
;
E
u
r
o
p
a
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1201 3rd Street (Ralph’s Grocery) was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no l onger eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continui ty, and character of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and does not retain sufficient integrity for local, state, or federal listin g .
12
3
7
3
r
d
S
t
12
3
7
‐
1
2
3
9
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
5
4
J
o
s
e
p
h
H
a
l
p
e
r
n
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1237‐1239 3rd Street was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eli gible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and characte r of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and does not retain s ufficient integrity for local, state, or federal listin g .
PA
G
E
5
O
F
6
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
‐
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
H
R
I
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
S
T
JU
L
Y
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
f
f
i
x
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
pe
r
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Na
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
St
y
l
e
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
St
y le
Previous HRI Status Code Local Register Statement of Significance
12
4
2
3
r
d
S
t
12
4
2
‐
1
2
4
6
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
3
7
N
o
r
s
t
r
o
m
a
n
d
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1242‐1246 3rd Street was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eli gible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and characte r of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and does not retain s ufficient integrity for local, state, or federal listin g .
13
5
2
3
r
d
S
t
13
5
2
‐
1
3
6
0
3
r
d
S
t
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
19
2
9
K
r
e
m
p
e
l
a
n
d
E
r
k
e
s
B
a
n
k
o
f
I
t
a
l
y
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1352‐1360 3rd Street (Bank of Italy) was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and character of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and d oes not retain sufficient inte g rit y for local, state, or federal listin g .
14
2
9
3
r
d
S
t
1
4
2
9
3
r
d
S
t
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
1
9
1
3
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
L
1429 3rd Street was previously identified as a contributor to t he Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and character of the former historic district, it has been extensively altered and does not retain sufficient int egrity for local, state, or federal listin g .
12
3
1
4
t
h
S
t
1
2
3
1
‐
1
2
3
5
4
t
h
S
t
1
9
4
6
La
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
n
e
5
D
3
6
L
1231‐1235 4th Street was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, this area is no longer eli gible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and characte r of the former historic district, it does not, on its own, appear to satisfy the regist ration requirements for local, state, or federal listin g .
51
0
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
1
9
5
6
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
e
r
n
a
c
u
l
a
r
5
D
3
6
L
510 Arizona Avenue was previously identified as a contributor t o the Central Business Historic District. However, this area is no longer eligible as a historic district. While the property contributed to the scale, continuity, and character of the former historic distric, it does not, on its own, appear to satisfy the registration requir ements for local, state, or federal listin g .
31
7
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
31
7
‐
3
3
5
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
;
3
2
5
‐
32
9
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
19
2
5
P
a
u
l
R
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
B
6
L
317‐335 Wilshire Boulevard was previously identified as eligibl e for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark, and as a contributor to the Central Business D istrict Historic District. However, the building has been extensively altered and does not retain sufficient integrity for listin g .
13
1
8
2
n
d
S
t
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
Z
1318 2nd Street was previously identified as a contributor to t he Central Business District Historic District. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
15
2
2
2
n
d
S
t
1
5
2
2
‐
1
5
2
4
2
n
d
S
t
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
Z
1522‐1524 2nd Street contained a ghost sign that was previously identified as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, th e sign and the building with which it is associated have since been demolished.
14
2
7
4
t
h
S
t
1
4
2
5
‐
1
4
2
9
4
t
h
S
t
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
D
3
6
Z
1425‐1429 4th Street was previously identified as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
13
3
2
5
t
h
S
t
13
3
2
‐
1
3
3
6
5
t
h
S
t
;
1
3
4
2
5
t
h
St
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
*
6
Z
1332‐1336 5th Street was previously identified as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
15
5
4
5
t
h
S
t
1
5
5
0
‐
1
5
5
8
5
t
h
S
t
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
B
6
Z
1550‐1558 5th Street (Royalty Auto Body) was previously identif ied as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark, and as a contributor to the Central Bu siness District Historic District. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
14
2
3
7
t
h
S
t
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
B
6
Z
1423 7th Street was previously identified as eligible for listi ng as a Santa Monica Landmark, and as a contributor to the Central Business District Historic District. However, the building has since been demolished.
40
2
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
3
S
;
5
B
6
Z
402 Colorado Avenue (Sears Auto Center) was previously identifi ed as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark, and as a contributor to the Central Bu siness District Historic District. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
14
4
4
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
*
6
Z
1444 Lincoln Boulevard was previously identified as eligible fo r listing as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit. However, the buildin g has since been demolished.
16
0
7
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
1
6
0
7
‐
1
6
1
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
6
Z
1607‐1613 Lincoln Boulevard (Santa Monica Municipal Bus Barn) w as previously identified as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. However, th e building has since been demolished.
15
1
5
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
5
S
3
*
6
Z
1515 Ocean Avenue (Pacific Sands Motel) was previously identifi ed as eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit. However, the building has sinc e been demolished.
PA
G
E
6
O
F
6
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, California
Prepared for:
Harding, Larmore, Kutcher, & Kozal, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1250 6th St, #200
Santa Monica, CA 90421
Prepared by:
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
13417 Ventura Blvd
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
March 5, 2018
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2
III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 3
IV. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4
V. REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................. 5
National Register of Historic Places
California Register of Historical Resources
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
City of Santa Monica
Previous Surveys
Downtown Community Plan
2017 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Downtown Community Plan Area
VI. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY ............................................................................................... 16
Physical Description
Ownership History
Occupant History
Alterations
Architect & Builder History
VII. HISTORIC CONTEXTS ................................................................................................................ 26
Spanish Colonial Revival
Mixed-use Commercial Building
Pre-World War II Commercial Development
Route 66 in Santa Monica
VIII. HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 32
National and California Registers
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
City of Santa Monica
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 35
X. ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 39
Attachment A: Contemporary Images
Attachment B: Historic Images
Attachment C: Maps and Aerials
Attachment D: Original Building Permit
Attachment E: Drawings
Attachment F: Alterations
Attachment G: List of Tenants
Attachment H: Images of Like Properties
Attachment I: Previous Surveys
Attachment J: Technical Assistance Bulletin #8, User’s Guide to the California Historical
Resource Status Codes
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 1 Historic Resource Assessment
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the property located at 101 Santa Monica
Boulevard (101 Santa Monica), Santa Monica, California (subject property) is eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical
Resources (California Register), or as a City of Santa Monica (City) Landmark or Structure of Merit,
and to determine if the subject property is a historical resource for purposes of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. This document finds that the subject property is ineligible
for listing at the national, state or local level, and does not constitute a historical resource under
CEQA.
The subject property contains a two-story plus penthouse, mixed-use commercial and residential
property and surface parking lot. The building was designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style by
architect A.H. O’Brien and constructed in 1925. The subject property is on one of eleven lots that
comprise approximately 1.9 acres included in a proposed redevelopment project (proposed project)
at the northeast corner of Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, which would involve
demolition of the subject property. The proposed project also includes addresses 1327, 1333, and
1337 Ocean Avenue, as well as 129 Santa Monica Boulevard. Two designated City Landmarks are
located at 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue, respectively. The parcels at 1327 Ocean Avenue and 129
Santa Monica Boulevard do not appear to contain historical resources.
This report is an assessment of the subject property only and does not include evaluation of other
properties that are part of the proposed project. The property owner is currently proposing a project
that would involve demolition of the building located at the subject property, as well as on-site
relocation and rehabilitation of the two buildings designated as City Landmarks and located on
adjacent parcels to the north (1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue). Plans for relocation and rehabilitation
of 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue are not reviewed in this document.
This document evaluates potential historic significance by establishing building history and relevant
historic contexts. The subject property is not significant for its Spanish Colonial Revival architecture,
as it is not a good example of the style and it has been extensively altered. The subject property is
not significant as an example of the mixed-use commercial building property type, as there are other
better examples in Santa Monica, such as the Georgian Hotel on Ocean Avenue, the Embassy
Hotel-Apartments on Third Street, and the Lido Hotel on Fourth Street. The subject property is not
significant for its association with Route 66. W hile it is commonly thought that Route 66 terminated at
Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, the highway actually ended at another nearby location
in the City; thus, the subject property is not associated with Route 66.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 2 Historic Resource Assessment
II. QUALIFICATIONS
Chattel is a full service historic preservation consulting firm with practice throughout the western
United States. The firm represents governmental agencies and private ventures, successfully
balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without sacrificing
principles on either side. Comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards in history, architecture, architectural history, and historic
architecture, the firm offers professional services including historical resources evaluation and
project impacts analysis, in addition to consultation on federal, state, and local historic preservation
statutes and regulations.
Staff engage in a collaborative process and work together as a team on individual projects. This
evaluation was prepared by Olivia White, Associate I, and firm President Robert Chattel, AIA,
professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for historic
architecture, architecture and architectural history.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 3 Historic Resource Assessment
III. METHODOLOGY
The evaluation and determination is the result of site-specific and contextual research in primary and
secondary sources, including that obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor and the City
Department of Building and Safety; application of criteria of significance within the appropriate
historic context; and direct observations of the subject property made during site visits conducted on
March 7, 2012 and February 13, 2018 by professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for historic architecture, architecture, and architectural history.
Evaluation of the subject property is also based on eligibility standards established in City of Santa
Monica Draft Historic Resources Inventory Update Historic Context Statement (2017). It also relied
on information in the City Downtown Community Plan (DCP) and the Downtown Community Plan
Area of the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update, and the Downtown Community
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), collectively,the DCP and its supporting documents.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 4 Historic Resource Assessment
IV. INTRODUCTION
In 2012, Chattel, Inc. (then Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation Inc.) prepared a historic
resource assessment (HRA) of the subject property in light of a proposed plan (2012 Chattel HRA).
Since that time, the proposed project has changed to reflect information contained in the DCP,
adopted by City Council in July 2017, effective August 2017. The subject property was previously
identified in a 1982-1983 historic survey, published as the Santa Monica Historical Resources
Inventory 1985-1986 Final Report (1985-1986 Report), where it was identified as a contributor to a
potential historic district, Central Business Historic District (potential district). Two Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) survey forms from 1983 exist for the subject property, one which
evaluated it as a contributor to the potential district, and one that evaluated it individually. The DPR
form recommended the subject property be assigned National Register Status Code (status code) 3,
which at the time meant “appears eligible for National Register to person completing or reviewing the
form,”1 but when results were published for the 1985-1986 Report, the California Office of Historic
Preservation assigned the subject property status code 5, “ineligible for the National Register but still
of local interest.” The subject property continued to be identified as eligible as a contributor to the
potential district when we completed our 2012 Chattel HRA, in which we found the potential district
ineligible, and described that it was not identified utilizing appropriate guidance from the National
Park Service or professional standards. Since that time, the DCP and its supporting documents
found the potential district no longer exists, as the DCP notes that “downtown is not eligible to
become a designated historic district.”2 The subject property, however, was identified in the DCP
and its supporting documents as individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation as a City Landmark. For reasons stated in this report, we disagree with the findings of the
DCP and its supporting documents, and findings of the 2017 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory
Update—Downtown Community Plan Area (2017 HRI update), and do not think it should be
considered a historical resource for the purposes of the CEQA.
This historic resource assessment reevaluates the subject property incorporating new research and
reviewing alterations to the building since 2012. It also assesses the methodology and findings of the
DCP and its supporting documents, and the 2017 HRI Update. We find the subject property ineligible
for listing at the national, state, or local level, thus, it should not be considered a historical resource
for the purposes of CEQA.
1 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks & Recreation Technical Assistance
Bulletin #8, User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory
Directory, 2004, 10, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.
2 “The Downtown Community Plan,” City of Santa Monica, 2017, 70.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 5 Historic Resource Assessment
V. REGULATORY SETTING
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s official list of historic and
cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, the National Register is part of a federal program to coordinate and support
public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the country’s historic and archaeological
resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.
A district “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures,
or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”3
The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the
United States Department of the Interior. Resources are eligible for National Register listing if they
are at least 50 years of age and:
A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or
C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.4
Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above-referenced criteria, then it must be
assessed for integrity. Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance, and the
degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes, for which it
is significant under the four basic criteria listed above. The National Register recognizes seven
aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of
these aspects.
The National Register includes only those properties that retain sufficient integrity to accurately
convey their physical and visual appearance from their identified period of significance. Period of
significance describes the period in time during which a property’s importance is established. It can
refer simply to the date of construction, or it can span multiple years, depending on the reason the
property is important. The period of significance is established based on the property’s relevant
historic context and as supported by facts contained in the historic context statement.
Evaluation of integrity is founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how
they relate to its significance.”5 A property significant under criterion A or B for its association with a
pattern or history of significant persons may still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance
even if it retains a low degree of integrity of design, materials or workmanship. Conversely, a
property that derives its significance exclusively for its architecture under criterion C must retain a
high degree of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For some properties, comparison
with similar properties is considered during the evaluation of integrity, especially when a property
type is particularly rare.
3 National Register. IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties. “District.”
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_4.htm#district.
4 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park
Service, 1990, revised 2002).
5 Ibid.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 6 Historic Resource Assessment
While integrity is important in evaluating and determining significance, a property’s physical
condition, whether it is in a deteriorated or pristine state, has relatively little influence on its
significance. A property that is in good condition may lack the requisite level of integrity to convey its
significance due to alterations or other factors. Likewise, a property in extremely poor condition may
still retain substantial integrity from its period of significance and clearly convey its significance.
Relationship to subject property
The subject property is not listed in, nor has it been officially determined to be eligible for listing in
the National Register.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was established to serve as an
authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources (Public
Resources Code (PCR) §5024.1). State law provides that in order for a property to be considered
eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources
Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria, if the resource is at least 50
years of age and:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; or
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is
integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of
integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no difference
with regard to significance. A property that meets the significance criteria for California Register
eligibility would also be eligible for listing in the National Register unless there are issues of integrity
that decrease the ability of the property to convey its significance.
The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for
listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number
770, and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number 770; points of historical interest,
which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for
listing; and city and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are
determined by State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to be consistent with
California Register criteria). PRC §5024.1(g) also states:
g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in
the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources
Inventory.
2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with
[OHP]… procedures and requirements.
3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a
significance rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and
Recreation] form 523.
4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for
inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical
resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 7 Historic Resource Assessment
circumstances or further documentation and those which have been
demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the
significance of the resource.
Resources are eligible as a California Register historic districts if they meet National Register historic
district criteria.
Relationship to subject property
The subject property is not listed in, nor has it been officially determined to be eligible for listing in
the California Register.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
According to CEQA,
an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical
resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section
5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section,
unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1).
If the proposed Project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in an historical resource,
environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts.
“Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such
that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5 (b)(1)). The CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(2)) describe material impairment taking place
when a project:
A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or
B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical
resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or
culturally significant; or
C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for
the purposes of CEQA.
According to the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(3)), “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary
of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and
Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource.” The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 8 Historic Resource Assessment
(Secretary’s Standards) is published by the National Park Service (NPS), and was recently updated
and reissued in July 2017.6
Relationship to subject property
The subject property was identified as a potential Landmark in the DCP and the 2017 HRI Update,
and was assigned the status code 5S3, “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or
designation through survey evaluation.” As stated in the DCP “HRI-listed properties are presumptive
historic resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.”7 However, for reasons
stated in this report, we disagree with the survey findings, and do not think the subject property
should be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The preponderance of
evidence presented in this report refutes the findings of the 2017 HRI Update. As noted in CEQA, §
15064.5.A.2,
A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k)
of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey
meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be
presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such
resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not
historically or culturally significant [emphasis added].
The subject property should not be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
The City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance permits the City’s Landmarks
Commission to designate a property as a local City Landmark if it meets one or more of the following
criteria:8
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 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.
The City also recognizes Structures of Merit. While such properties are not eligible as individual
Landmarks, they are still recognized with “more limited degree of individual significance.”9 The
Landmarks Commission can designate a property as a Structure of Merit if it meets one or more of
the following criteria:10
6 Anne E. Grimmer. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstruction Historic Buildings.” Rev. National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017.
7 City of Santa Monica Downtown Community Plan, Historic Preservation, 68.
8 Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.56.100(a).
9 City of Santa Monica, “Historic Preservation in Santa Monica,”
http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-Preservation/.
10 Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.56.080. “Thematic districts” are groupings of related, significant
properties that share themes, trends or patterns of history. A thematic grouping can encompass multiple property
types that are defined by shared physical characteristics or shared historical association. The concept of a thematic
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 9 Historic Resource Assessment
A. The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
B. The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
• The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type.
• The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer
prevalent.
• The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The City also designates historic districts, which are described as “any geographic area or
noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties.”11 Historic districts are designated by the
City Council. In addition to meeting one of the above criteria, a historic district may be found to be
significant if:
1. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area
possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to
each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural
quality.
2. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different
eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive
examples of park or community planning.
3. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
In 2014, the City Council repealed a provision that previously allowed a majority of property owners
within the potential historic district to block its designation (previously codified in Santa Monica
Municipal Code section 9.36.130 (h)).
As described in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.060 and section 9.56.110, “the
designation of any improvement as a Structure of Merit, Landmark, or Contributing Building or
Structure [to a historic district] shall only include the exterior features of the improvement;” however,
“any interior space regularly open to the public, including, but not limited to, a lobby area” may be
included in a designation.
Relationship to subject property
The subject property has not been previously designated as a Landmark or Structure of Merit in the
City. It was identified in the 2017 HRI update as Landmark eligible and was assigned the status code
5S3, “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”
For reasons stated in this report, we disagree with these survey findings and find the subject
property to be ineligible for local listing.
PREVIOUS SURVEYS (Attachment I)
The subject property has been surveyed at least four times since 1982. It was first identified as both
a contributor to a potential district, and as individually eligible. It was later identified as only eligible
as a contributor to a potential district that the 2017 HRI Update notes no longer exists. The subject
district was used in preservation planning prior to the 1990s, when it was superseded by the concept of “Multiple
Property Documentation” (or MPD) with the publication of National Register Bulletin 16B, How to Complete the
National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Park Service, 1991 and revised 1999).
11 Ibid.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 10 Historic Resource Assessment
property was most recently identified as individually eligible at the local level in the 2017 HRI
Update. All previous surveys available that identified the subject property are reviewed below.
Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory 1985-1986 Final Report (1985-1986 Report)
The subject property was first identified in the 1982-1983 City historic resource survey; results of this
survey were finalized and published in the 1985-1986 Report. Two DPR survey forms for the subject
property were filed in this survey; one that evaluated it for individual eligibility, another that evaluated
it as a contributor to the potential district. The form evaluating individual eligibility is dated March
1983 and assigns the subject property the status code 5, indicating eligibility for listing locally.12 The
form also notes in the significance statement that status code 3 is recommended for the subject
property. At the time, status code 3 meant the subject property was individually eligible for local
listing. There is no substantial information provided to support the finding of individual eligibility. The
1985-1986 Report, describes that the subject property is eligible as a contributor to the potential
district only, and does not refer to the evaluation of individual eligibility. The DPR survey form in
which the subject property is evaluated for individual significance notes:
The Bellevue Restaurant complex is a typical example of a small scale commercial building
in the 1920s in the Los Angeles region. Both in terms of its style, the popular Spanish
Colonial Revival, and its massing, the implied “tower” at the corner, the building is evocative
of its period of construction. What is remarkable about the structure is its continued viability
due to renovation and adaptation and the fact that it has become a landmark of sorts to the
thousands of people using the beach, the business district, and Palisades Park every day.
The Review Committee of the Santa Monica Architectural and Historical Survey recommend
a 3 designation of significance for the buildings.13
Despite the recommendation of the status code 3, “appears eligible for National Register or
California Register through survey evaluation,” the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP),
assigned the building the status code 5, “properties recognized as historically significant by a local
government.” OHP determined that the subject property was less significant than described by
surveyors. Further, the statement of significance describes that the subject property retains
significance because it is located at the corner, which corresponds to City Criteria 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.” However, this criterion alone should not be used to designate
a building unless it meets one or more other criteria in the City. As we will explain further, the subject
property is not individually eligible for local listing.
Central Business Historic District
In the 1985-1986 Report, the subject property was also evaluated as a contributor to the potential
district, first identified in this survey. The original description of the potential district, which has been
determined by the DCP and its supporting documents to no longer exist, and which we describe in
our 2012 Chattel HRA as a district not identified through proper survey methodology, was first
described in the 1985-1986 survey:
A survey district roughly bounded by Wilshire Boulevard, Second Street, Colorado Avenue,
Fourth Street south of Santa Monica Boulevard and Seventh Street north of it, the business
area contains 122 structures of varying degrees of significance. Most buildings are
commercial in function, although some institutions and residences remain from the earliest
development of the area. Buildings of each period, from 1875 through the present day, stand
12 Current methodology for historical resource surveys in California employs use of the California Historical
Resource Status Codes, rather than the previously used National Register status codes.
13 California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form for 101 Santa Monica
Boulevard, prepared by Heumann Gleye and JHRA for the City of Santa Monica, 1983.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 11 Historic Resource Assessment
in the area, their styling and historic associations providing a physical document of the
commercial history of the city.14
Of the properties located on Santa Monica Boulevard, the survey notes:
Santa Monica Boulevard, one the other hand, is one of the more intact 1920s streets in the
business district. Formerly known as Oregon Avenue, it was the city’s early arterial street
and the principal access route from Los Angeles; for many years it was designated as U.S.
Highway 66, which began in Chicago, and ended in Santa Monica. Several of the most well-
known and used buildings in Santa Monica are located on this corridor, including the Mayfair
Music Hall at 216 (a circa 1911 theatre remodeled in the Churrigueresque style in 1929 by
Henry C. Hollwedel); the Bay Cities Guaranty Building at 221-225 (the city’s first “skyscraper,
built in 1929 in the Art Deco style by Los Angeles architects Walker and Eisen); the Junipher
Building at 301 (a prime example of classically influenced brick vernacular architecture by
pioneer Los Angeles architect A.C. Martin in 1922); and Henshey’s Department Store at 402
(built for the Tegner family in the Renaissance Revival style by Henry Hollwedel in 1924 and
its façade covered, intact, by a punched aluminum screen in 1962).15
This potential district, discontinuous in nature, was never evaluated using proper survey
methodology using guidance from the National Park Service. Further, in the description of the street
on which the subject property is located, the subject property is not specifically referenced as an
important building on the street in the district. Nevertheless, the subject property was identified as a
district contributor and assigned the status code 5D, “eligible for local listing as a contributor only.”
In 1998, the potential district was found to have 77 contributing buildings, as opposed to the 105
previously determined. 47 contributors were removed “due to new construction and alterations
affecting integrity.” The subject property was identified as a contributor, and its status code was
changed to 5D1, “contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally,” a code it should have
never been assigned because the potential district was never listed.
City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, 2010 (2010 HRI
Update)
In the 2010 HRI Update prepared by IFC Jones & Stokes, the subject property was again identified
as a contributor to the potential district, and assigned the status code 5D3, “appears to be a
contributor to a district that appears eligible through survey evaluation.” In 2010 the potential district
was found to have 69 contributors. The subject property was not identified as individually eligible in
the 2010 HRI Update.
The 2010 HRI Update cast doubt on the existence of the potential district, noting that:
The potential historic district identified is discontiguous, with contributors scattered over
many blocks. A variety of property types, including but not limited to single-family homes,
mixed-use buildings, apartment-hotels, and offices is included, without a clear explanation of
why such varied resources should be tied together as a district. It appears that the potential
district is an arbitrary collection of resources generally constructed in the 1920s and 1930s
that happened to have survived, rather than a grouping of resources linked to a particular
historic context. Current survey methodology to identify a historic district of discontiguous
parcels is called the Multiple Property Submission Approach, and requires an exhaustive
evaluation of the district as a whole in addition to its individual contributors. First, a thorough
14 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, “Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory 1985-1986 Final
Report,” presented to Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, 28.
15 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, “Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory 1985-1986 Final
Report,” presented to Office of Historic Preservation, State of California, 33.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 12 Historic Resource Assessment
historic context documenting why the district is significant must be developed to provide a
relevant background against which to judge potential significance of individual resources.
The resulting narrative would include detailed eligibility criteria outlining how to evaluate a
variety of property types (e.g., single-family homes, office buildings, etc.), as well as a variety
of architectural styles. Each property would then need to be found to meet the established
criteria for the relevant property type and/or architectural style, as an individually eligible
resource. It appears that the 2010 evaluation is an update to determine if the buildings
previously identified as contributors are extant, as opposed to an evaluation of their
alterations since the previous survey, or a comprehensive afresh review of potential eligibility
of the Central Business Historic District.
Further, for a potential historic district evaluation to be complete there should be a clear
boundary justification describing the geographic area in which the district is contained. The
boundary justification must establish why that particular geographic area is linked to the
historic context, and contributors and non-contributors within the boundary must be clearly
identified. Such a boundary justification has not previously been provided for the potential
Central Business Historic District. Should the potential Central Business Historic District be
re-evaluated in the future, guidance by the National Park Service on how to appropriately
prepare a boundary justification should be followed. Among the detailed information provided
on this subject in National Register Bulletin, Defining Boundaries for National Register
Properties,16 is the following summary of how a boundary justification should be prepared:
Provide a concise explanation of the reasons for selecting the boundaries, based on the
property's historic significance and integrity. Discuss the methods used to determine the
boundaries. Account for irregular boundaries and areas excluded because of loss of
integrity.17
In our 2012 Chattel HRA we agreed with the above described evaluation of the potential district and
explained further why the potential district was not eligible.
DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
The Downtown Community Plan (DCP), was adopted by City Council in July 2017, and became
effective August 2017. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the DCP, a 229-acre
area which is defined by Ocean Avenue on the west, Wilshire Boulevard to the north (with some
parcels between Wilshire and California included), Lincoln Court to the east, and Interstate 10 to the
south. The DCP was created to guide future planning and “lays out a framework that integrates
housing, jobs, mobility, historic preservation, public open space, infrastructure, and art and culture
into a comprehensive long-term Plan.”18
Historic preservation is addressed in Chapter 2C. Critical to historic preservation planning in the
DCP was the 2017 HRI update. Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group
surveyed the Downtown Community Plan Area, which has the same boundaries as the DCP. The
DCP “includes Action HP1.2C that requires that the Downtown HRI be submitted to the State Office
of Historic Preservation within 45 days of the effective date of the Plan. This means that the HRI-
listed properties are presumptive historic resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, and therefore, alterations must comply with the Secretary’s Standards. If alterations are not in
16 Donna J. Seifert, et al, National Register Bulletin, Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties
(Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995, revised 1997.
17 Donna J. Seifert, et al, National Register Bulletin, Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties
(Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995, revised 1997.
18 The Downtown Community Plan, City of Santa Monica,
https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Plans/Downtown-Community-Plan/.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 13 Historic Resource Assessment
compliance with the standards, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required.”19 The plan
notes that “downtown is not eligible to become a designated historic district because of the lack of
historic continuity among buildings.”
As described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) of the Downtown Community
Plan,
Importantly, the HRI Update […] concluded that the previously identified Central Business
Historic District no longer retains sufficient integrity to be eligible as a historic district. The
area no longer contains a cohesive concentration of historic or architecturally significant
properties that are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development, or architectural
quality. Properties that were previously identified as contributors to this district were
evaluated for individually eligibility against local, state, and federal criteria. Four of these
properties appeared to no longer satisfy registration requirements for federal, state, and/or
local eligibility, and are included in the Property Database as having been previously
identified but no longer meeting eligibility criteria (these are given the status code 6L). Due to
increased development of the Central Business District and the larger downtown area, 17
previously identified resources in the DCP no longer retain sufficient integrity for listing or
have been demolished altogether. As a result, properties included in the inventory have been
identified as individually eligible instead of potential District contributors [emphasis added].
The HRI now identifies 76 properties within the Downtown Community Plan boundaries as
being potentially significant.20
Relationship to Subject Property
The subject property was identified in the DCP as a potential Landmark identified through survey
evaluation in the 2017 HRI update. However, as the DCP Final EIR noted, it was only identified as
such because there is no longer a potential district. This logic does not follow prescribed
methodology for local surveys as described in National Register Bulletin 24, “Guidelines for Local
Surveys: A Basis For Preservation Planning,” which describes that properties should be evaluated
for significance within relevant historic contexts.21
No substantial evidence is provided as to why the subject property, or the 75 others, were found to
be individually Landmark eligible. It does not follow professional standards to identify a property as
individually eligible only because the potential district it was once a contributor is no longer eligible.
In regard to the language contained in the DCP about CEQA which describes that “HRI-listed
properties are presumptive historic resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
and therefore, alterations must comply with the Secretary’s Standards,” this is a misinterpretation of
CEQA, which actually notes that “Generally [emphasis added], a project that follows the Secretary of
the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and
Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource.” CEQA specifies that material impairment to a historical resource is a significant impact,
and mitigation measures would be required to be implemented.
For reasons stated in this report, we disagree with survey findings and find the subject property to be
ineligible for listing at the national, state, and local levels, and should not be considered a historical
19 “The Downtown Community Plan,” City of Santa Monica, 2017, 68,
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/Downtown-Specific-Plan/FINAL%20DCP_web.pdf.
20 “Downtown Community Plan – City of Santa Monica, Final EIR,” City of Santa Monica, 2017.
21 National Register Bulletin 24, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis For Preservation Planning,” National
Park Service, 1977, revised 1985, 45.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 14 Historic Resource Assessment
resource for the purposes of CEQA. The subject property was not identified in the 2010 HRI Update
as individually Landmark eligible, and no substantial evidence has been provided to explain why the
it was identified in the DCP as individually Landmark eligible.
CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE: DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
AREA
The subject property was identified in the 2017 HRI update, a reconnaissance survey, in the
Downtown Community Plan Area. A reconnaissance survey, sometimes referred to as a windshield
survey, is a “once over” inspection of the resources in a particular area. This is in contrast to an
intensive survey, which is a more detailed survey that attempts to document “precisely and
completely all historic resources in the area.”22 The scope of the survey included “all built resources
within the limits of Santa Monica’s Downtown Community Plan area” constructed before 1977.23 All
resources previously identified in the 2010 HRI update were surveyed again in 2017. Approximately
512 parcels were surveyed. The survey of the Downtown Community Plan Area was completed in
July 2016. The 2017 HRI update identified 48 eligible resources. Through the 2017 HRI update, 17
properties were removed from the list of eligible resources, and eight properties were added. The 17
previously identified resources were found ineligible because they “no longer retain sufficient
integrity for listing or have been demolished altogether.”24 Four buildings, previously identified as
contributors to the potential district were assigned the status code 6L, “determined ineligible for local
listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in
local planning.” These properties “do not, on their own, satisfy the registration requirements for
listing as individual resources.”25
In Appendix B—Downtown HRI Property List, the subject property was assigned the status code
5S3, “appears to be individually eligible for local listing/designation through survey evaluation.” The
statement of significance for the subject property reads:
101-117 Santa Monica Boulevard appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark.
The property is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a
commercial building. Constructed in 1925, it exhibits characteristics that are associated with
the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also
significant for representing early patterns of commercial development that shaped Santa
Monica’s central business district prior to World War II.
Relationship to Subject Property
For reasons stated in this report, we disagree with the findings of the 2017 HRI update regarding the
subject property. The subject property is a representative example of Spanish Colonial Revival
architecture, but due to numerous alterations, the building has lost nearly all of its integrity. It is not
an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival when compared with properties of the same style
in Santa Monica which retain more original character-defining features of the style. The subject
property is not significant for its representing early patterns of commercial development in Santa
Monica because although it was constructed in the growing commercial core of Santa Monica, it is
not a significant example of this development, and did not ever house businesses significant to the
development of Santa Monica. There is no evidence to support why the subject property was found
to be individually Landmark eligible after such determination was removed in the 2010 HRI Update.
22 National Register Bulletin 24, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis For Preservation Planning,” National
Park Service, 1977, revised 1985, 12.
23 “City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update, Downtown Community Plan Area,”
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 2017, 5.
24 “City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update, Downtown Community Plan Area,”
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 2017, 17.
25 Ibid., 22.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 15 Historic Resource Assessment
While the potential district was found to no longer exist, that factor alone does not mean that
previously identified contributors to the potential district automatically become individually Landmark
eligible without substantial evidence.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 16 Historic Resource Assessment
VI. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY
Physical Description
Setting
The subject property is located at 101 Santa Monica in the City of Santa Monica, California and
includes one assessor parcel (APN 4291-014-025). Constructed in 1925, it was designed in the
Spanish Colonial Revival style by architect A.H. O’Brien. It historically included addresses 1341-59
Ocean Avenue (Ocean) and 101-117 Santa Monica. It is bounded by an alley to the east, Santa
Monica to the south, Ocean to the west and a parking lot to the north. The subject property contains
a single building oriented toward the intersection of Ocean and Santa Monica, with two primary
elevations, one that fronts Ocean (west elevation) and the other, Santa Monica (south elevation).
There is a surface parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east of the building. Constructed of
unreinforced masonry, the building is two-stories with a rooftop penthouse. It is E-shaped in plan,
with two narrow light courts running north-south.
Exterior
West elevation
The west elevation is composed of three bays, and generally has storefronts on the ground floor,
and a regular fenestration pattern at the second floor. It has textured stucco exterior walls, and a
generally flat roof, aside from the pyramidal roof present at the corner of Santa Monica and Ocean,
which is clad in red clay tiles, as is the parapet across the central portion of this elevation. The first-
floor features two commercial tenant spaces, one occupied by Blue Plate Oysterette restaurant (Blue
Plate), and the other by Boa Steakhouse (Boa). Blue Plate occupies the northern storefront, and has
a wood door with large, fixed single-pane windows on either side. The storefront is situated within its
original decorative enframement, although the original storefront windows have been replaced and
infilled. An awning covering outdoor patio dining has been added, as well as a row of simple, wall-
mounted light fixtures above the awning. The center bay has a single divided light wood door. This
door has an original decorative pediment, though the original arched opening was narrowed to
accommodate a blue tile planter and door surround. The Boa storefront occupies the southernmost
bay. The storefront windows, once flush with the elevation, were replaced with more deeply
recessed fixed pane windows to allow for patios with outdoor dining. A simple, metal-frame canopy
above provides a surface for tenant signage, and attachment for a canvas awning and roll-up patio
enclosure. The original clerestory windows above have been infilled. The decorative banding above
the former clerestory windows is extant in the center bay of the east elevation, but the decorative
enframement originally surrounding the storefront window in the southernmost bay has been
replaced.
The second floor has fourteen divided light double hung windows roughly regularly spaced across
the elevation. Two of the windows at the southernmost end are emphasized with medallions above,
some windows have metal bars on the lower panes. Strips of decorative horizontal bands run above
the windows and just below the roofline. There is also a small decorative vent with a diamond lattice
pattern in the central bay. Above the northernmost bay is the 1954 penthouse, which is rectangular
and contains a single story, several windows and decorative medallions. There is a single strip of
decorative banding above the penthouse windows, and an adjacent outdoor patio on the roof to the
south, bordered by a windscreen.
North elevation
Fronting the adjacent surface parking lot, the north elevation is utilitarian and generally void of
ornamentation. The first floor is largely obscured by a tall shrub hedge. From this elevation, two
narrow light court openings are visible above the ground floor level. These openings also provide
“back of house” space for the restaurant tenants, as well as a common light well and laundry room.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 17 Historic Resource Assessment
East elevation
Fronting the alley, the east elevation is
utilitarian in nature and generally void of ornamentation. It has three bays with painted brick exterior
walls. The southernmost bay has decorative banding at the roofline and a divided light window set in
an arched enframement arched at the ground floor. This window is a replacement. The center bay
previously had a ground floor window which was infilled with brick. Also, in the center bay there is a
truck door-size service entrance enclosed with a metal screen and containing a pedestrian door. The
northernmost bay has an arched pedestrian door. At the second floor there is a row of windows,
most of which are set within arched enframements, some of which have fixed shutters. The
southernmost bay has a sign at the second story reading “Belle Vue Plaza.”
South elevation
At the ground floor, the south elevation contains three bays encompassing storefronts for four tenant
spaces. At the west end is a storefront for Boa, which includes two fixed-pane storefront windows
which are replacements. A simple metal awning has been added extending horizontally from the
exterior wall. While the westernmost portion of the storefront originally had a decorative stucco
enframement, the enframement has been removed. However, the original decorative banding to the
east, above the eastern portion of Boa Steakhouse and the adjacent tenant spaces, is intact. The
next bay at the ground level has one fixed-pane storefront window, with a metal door with divided
light glass panes. A contemporary awning extends over the window and door. A small outdoor dining
patio is framed by a short wall.
The next bay to the east is occupied by Little Ruby, and has smooth stucco exterior walls, a square
opening with a metal overhead door that opens to a dining patio, and a divided light metal door with
transom. It has a contemporary neon sign mounted to the wall near the entrance. The next bay to
the east is occupied by Stout Burgers and Beers and is clad in bricks at the first floor and has a
glass door with metal top and bottom rails (main entry), with two openings that have metal overhead
doors with glass panes that opens to a dining patio and a contemporary metal awning. Two metal
signs exist, one above the main entry and one above the awning.
The easternmost tenant space is currently being remodeled and has its original decorative
enframement capped in a scalloped pediment. This bay has a central door with sidelights and two
storefront windows and transoms on either side that are replaced features located in the original
locations. There is a notch in the enframement around the door is where an awning was removed.
Two contemporary signs, one above the door, and one to the east, as well as a contemporary
sconce have been added to this bay. A contemporary metal railing is attached to the building in front
of both storefront windows to create outdoor dining patios.
At the second floor of the south elevation, fourteen windows are located along the elevation. Two of
the windows at the westernmost end are emphasized with medallions above. Strips of decorative
horizontal banding run above the windows and just below the roofline. There is also a small
decorative vent with a diamond lattice pattern in the central bay. Windows in the easternmost bay
have balconies, and decorative medallions above.
Courtyard & Roof
The E-shaped courtyard space generally has a regular fenestration pattern of double-hung wood
windows set in arched brick enframements and have back doors for each of the first-floor tenants.
The area serves as extra storage space for these tenants and is densely congested. The courtyard
has a metal stair that provides access to the roof. The building has a built-up flat roof and features
mechanical equipment. The pyramidal roof at the southwest corner of the building has red clay tiles
on the south and west facing sides, and red asphalt shingles on the north and east, non-street-facing
sides.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 18 Historic Resource Assessment
Interior
First Floor Interior
The first-floor interior restaurant spaces generally feature all contemporary finishes and fixtures.
They each feature a dining room, outdoor dining spaces, kitchens and food storage and preparation
spaces, restrooms, and some have bars.
Second Floor Interior
The second-floor interior space has residential apartment units. Units are accessed from a double-
loaded corridor. While generally void of ornamentation, corridors have high integrity. Two apartment
units were accessed in 2018 and a few others were previously accessed in 2012. Many units have
been extensively remodeled. A common feature in recently remodeled units is exposed brick walls
that were historically plastered. While many units have been altered, there are some original curved
plaster walls and hexagonal floor tiles in bathrooms throughout. Staircases are intact with simple,
unadorned wood banisters. The interior of the third-floor penthouse was not available at the time of
the site visit.
Ownership History
The history of ownership is largely based on owner names listed on building permits. It should be
noted that contractors, or others performing the work specified on building permits are often listed as
the owner, even though they do not actually own the property. A Chain of Title was not available to
substantiate these records.
• 1925: S. Malsman
• 1936-38: Metropolitan Life Insurance Co
• At least 1941 – at least 1960: James J. and Anne Wallace.26
• 1964: Sylvia B. Cromer
• 1977-present: M. David Paul & Associates (or affiliate)27
S. Malsman
The owner listed on the original 1925 building permit is S. Malsman. The only records for a male
matching the search “S. Malsam” on Ancestry was Sol Malsman, a Los Angeles area developer and
businessman associated with many large real estate transactions in the 1920s-1940s. Malsman
purchased the Jewelers’ Exchange Building at 741-55 South Hill St in Los Angeles in 1926 for more
than $5,500,000.28 In 1927, Malsman signed a 99 year lease for the property located at the
southeast corner of Hollywood Blvd and Bronson Ave, an aggregate rental amounting to
$1,737,000.29 In 1928, Malsman joined the Board of Directors of the newly formed Hollywood
Boulevard Association, a nonprofit composed of Hollywood Blvd property owners aimed at furthering
interests of Hollywood Blvd.30 In 1929, he purchased the property located at 8th and Olive Streets
for $750,000 and announced plans to erect a new height-limit building on the site in the place of the
existing building.31 Also in 1929 Malsman announced plans to develop a three-story Class A
26 Title to the property was transferred to James and Anne Wallace in 1941 for $80,000 (“Santa Monica
Transfer Made,” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 1941, E3).
27 Building permits available for work done in and after the 1970s includes a variety of owner names. The
Los Angeles County Assessor, however, provides that the property last changed hands in 1977 when it was sold to
the current owner M. David Paul & Associates (or affiliates). This discrepancy is likely because the names of tenants
or contractors were often used in place of the owner name on building permits. Thus, the names listed on permits
from the 1970s-present day are in many cases not the actual owner. See table of all available building permits at the
end of this document for full information.
28 “Millions Paid for Property,” Los Angeles Times, August 6,1926, A1.
29 “Huge Sum in Series of Deals,” Los Angeles Times, July 3, 1927, E1.
30 “Boulevard Group Forms,” Los Angeles Times, April 22, 1928, E4.
31 “Deal Made for Corner Downtown,” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1929, A1.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 19 Historic Resource Assessment
concrete and steel building at Wilshire Blvd and Kingsley with S. Charles Lee as architect.32 In 1945,
Malsman purchased with two other partners the Bolinger Building, a 12-story structure at 818 S.
Broadway in Los Angeles for over $1,500,000.33 While Malsman was an important early Los Angeles
developer and businessman, his ownership of the subject property at its time of construction does
not stand out as unique among his other transactions; it does not appear the building would be
significant for its association with him.
Occupant History
The history of occupants is largely based on review of city directories, which indicate there have
been a variety of commercial ground floor tenants and residential second floor tenants since
construction of the subject property in 1925. A complete list of known occupants can be found in
Attachment G.
Ground Floor - Primary Tenant Space
The primary ground floor tenant space located at the corner of Ocean Ave and Santa Monica Blvd
was occupied for many years by the Belle-Vue Restaurant, though it was originally used as office
space. A Sanborn Fire Insurance map (updated through 1950) shows that the space corresponds to
addresses 1359 Ocean and 101-103 Santa Monica, although it is possible the addresses have
changed over the years.
The earliest known tenant is from 1927. According to the 1927 Santa Monica city directory, the
earliest known tenant in the corner space was Meline Frank Company, Inc. realtors, which occupied
the space for only one year. The space is listed as vacant in the 1928 directory.
In 1930-31, the listed tenant was the Santa Monica-Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce. The
Chamber of Commerce occupied the 105 Santa Monica unit in 1928, and likely expanded to 101
Santa Monica in 1930-31. Tenant spaces at 103 and 105 Santa Monica are listed as vacant in 1933,
suggesting the Chamber of Commerce might have expanded to take over the entire primary tenant
spaces, using only 101 Santa Monica as their address. In 1933, the tenant was J.W. Martin,
dressmaker. In 1936, 101 and 103 Santa Monica are listed as vacant.
In 1938, the J.J. Wallace restaurant is listed as the tenant for 101-103 Santa Monica Blvd. Building
permits indicate that James J. Wallace and his wife Anne Wallace owned the entire building from at
least 1941 until at least 1960. The J.J. Wallace Restaurant occupied the corner space until at least
1947. By 1952, the name of the restaurant changed to Belle-Vue French Restaurant & Cocktail
Lounge. A city directory listing identifies James and Anne Wallace as the owners, and notes that the
space provided delicious food, banquet rooms, and free parking. It appears the most extensive
ground floor alterations occurred around 1953-54, when building permits were issued to remodel the
storefronts and add the third-floor penthouse. According to a 1991 review of the restaurant in the Los
Angeles Times, Belle-Vue Restaurant was “for many years the good French restaurant in Santa
Monica.”34 To compete with new restaurants in the growing commercial area around it, the Belle-Vue
was reinvented as a French brasserie in 1991, when it was remodeled, including removal of the
booths and “75% of the men’s club ambiance.”35 In 1993, Belle-Vue was replaced with Crocodile
Café, a “young and trendy” restaurant.36 In December 2004, the current tenant, Boa Steakhouse,
opened in the space.
32 “Improvement Announced for Wilshire Area,” Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1929, D2.
33 “Downtown Structure Sale One of Large Realty Deals,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1945, A2.
34 Michelle Huneven, “Restaurant Review: Santa Monica’s Belle-Vue Lets In the Light,” Los Angeles Times,
19 April 1991, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-04-19/entertainment/ca-424_1_santa-monica-boulevard, accessed
March 8, 2012.
35 Michelle Huneven, “Restaurant Review: Crocodile Rocks at the Beach,” September 17, 1993,
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-17/entertainment/ca-36060_1_crocodile-cafe, accessed March 28, 2012.
36 Ibid.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 20 Historic Resource Assessment
Ground Floor - Secondary Tenant Spaces
The smaller tenant spaces with storefronts on the south and west elevations have included a variety
of commercial tenants over the years, including an investment company, realtors, an awning maker,
a beauty shop, a dressmaker, the Young Men’s Christian Association, the American Red Cross, an
insurance company, an electrical appliance store, National Cash Register Co., a radio parts supplier,
and more. A full listing including years of tenancy was gathered from city directories and is
contained in Attachment G.
Second Floor - Tenants
The second floor apartment portion of the building with the street address of 1357 Ocean Ave was
called Dinmar Apartments from 1928 until at least 1961.37 A 1955 building permit for addition of new
signage indicates the building served as an apartment-hotel that offered furnished rooms at that
time.38 According to city directories, residential tenants through the early 1960s did not tend to stay
in the building for more than a year or two. The entire building (ground and second floor) is currently
referred to as Belle-Vue Plaza.
Alterations (Attachment F)
Overview
The building has been altered substantially throughout its history. The most significant alterations
have been to the first-floor storefronts, which were first altered in 1953 to incorporate elements of
mid-century modern design. The storefronts have subsequently been altered many times since and
are still being changed. The addition of the penthouse in 1954 has further changed the character of
the building. The ground floor interior tenant spaces have been altered numerous times throughout
its history. The alterations to this two-story building have significantly diminished its ability to convey
its character as a mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival building.
Exterior
The building exterior has been substantially changed since its original construction. Only about one-
third of the exterior fabric on the south and west elevations is intact. The north and east elevations
are excluded from this calculation because they are utilitarian in character and minor alterations
there are insignificant. The portions of the south and west elevations that are intact are limited to the
second floor exterior surfaces, and the entire storefront in the easternmost bay of the south elevation
(ground and second floor levels).
South and west elevation alterations began around 1953 with a comprehensive major remodeling to
the primary corner tenant space and ground floor storefronts at the south and west elevations.
Owners James J. and Anne Wallace remodeled the primary corner space and rebranded their “J.J.
Wallace Restaurant” as the “Belle-Vue French Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge.” The exterior of their
newly redone restaurant took on the mid-century style characteristic of restaurants built at the time.
Historic photographs of a Perry Mason television episode that aired in 1964 show close-up views of
the storefronts.39 It is clear that the originally tall-height storefront windows were recessed from their
original location flush with the façade. They were replaced with inward-slanting windows typical of
the period. In addition, the previously stuccoed exterior wall surfaces were replaced with brick
veneer Attachment F, Image 2). The change in appearance was drastic. However, it was common
37 Tenants in the second floor apartments are listed in city directories starting in 1927, when the residences
were called Dunmar Apartments. By 1928, the name had changed to Dinmar Apartments, which remained in use until
at least 1961, the last date of city directories available for research.
38 Building permit for new sign at 101 Santa Monica Blvd, City of Santa Monica Permit No B17706, May 12,
1955.
39 Perry Mason Episode 224 Season 8, “The Case of the Blonde Bonanza,” December 17, 1964. Images
captured as “print screens” from a blog about the show. These may be screenshots from a personal collection. Their
archive and ownership information is unknown. http://www.perrymasontvseries./wiki/index.php/Extras/Show224.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 21 Historic Resource Assessment
for commercial and mixed-use buildings from the 1920s to be altered in this manner in the 1950s.
For example, the ground floor of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on Hollywood Boulevard in Los
Angeles and the Original Joe’s restaurant in San Jose were altered in a similar manner. Both
buildings were originally constructed in the 1920s and given dramatic ground floor facelifts in the
1950s.40 In some cases, mid-century alterations of 1920s buildings may take on significance over
time. In regard to Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and Original Joe’s restaurant, this appears to be the
case. Had the 1950s storefront alterations to the subject property not have been dramatically
changed again after the 1950s to accommodate more recent tenants, it is possible the 1950s
alterations would have become significant, and that the building would retain sufficient integrity to
warrant eligibility as a historical resource for its architecture. However, the alterations that occurred
since the 1950s remodel are not in keeping with the historic character of the building and diminish
integrity substantially.
Major alterations to the south and west elevations have resulted in loss of overall character, shape
and form of the exterior, dramatically changing the relationship of the building to the street. While a
taller building could sustain more losses of integrity at the ground floor and still be able to convey its
significance, a building that is only two-stories in height cannot. Specifically, these critical alterations
include: removal of the original storefront windows, infill of the triangular recess above the main
entrance, removal of decorative enframements around storefront entrances, and recess of new
storefronts to allow for outdoor dining patios. Removal of these features—particularly the storefront
windows—caused a dramatic change in building character. What were once tall, delicately ordered
storefront windows that defined much of the character of the exterior, covering the south and west
elevations, were replaced with contemporary features that are not in keeping with the historic style;
the high-volume expression of the storefront windows has been lost. Also diminishing integrity is
addition of the third floor penthouse along the west elevation. While it is not uncommon to add a
rooftop penthouse to such a building, the added mass of the addition alters the feel of mass and
scale of the otherwise generally symmetrical primary elevations (Attachment F, Image 3).
Since 2012, three of the four storefronts have been altered. One is Little Ruby, which in 2012 was
tenant space for Bar Pintxo. In 2012 it had smooth stucco exterior walls, three-paired contemporary
single-light windows roughly centered on the elevation, and a wood door. It had a square metal
canopy that extended over an outdoor dining patio, which was framed by a contemporary metal
railing. In 2017, the door was replaced, the windows were removed, and a portion of the wall below
the windows was removed, and a metal overhead door with glass panes was installed. The metal
canopy was removed and replaced with a fabric awning. The metal railing at the patio was replaced
with a concrete wall (Attachment F, Images 7-8).
The adjacent storefront, which in 2012 was occupied by Thai Dishes, had stucco exterior walls, a
door with sidelight and two large divided light reflective glass windows that extended to the ground.
A door was located to the east of the windows. Above both windows were divided light transoms. It
had a curved awning hung just below the transom, and a contemporary sign above the transoms. In
2013, the exterior walls were altered with the addition of exposed brick veneer. The door and
sidelight were replaced, and the two large windows were removed, and replaced with metal
overhead doors. Contemporary distressed metal signs were installed both over the door and above
a contemporary metal awning that extends over the outdoor dining patio. A contemporary metal
railing surrounds the outdoor dining patio. The door to the east was infilled and covered in the same
brick veneer (Attachment F, Images 9-10).
At the easternmost storefront on the south elevation, the decorative stuccoed enframement has
been repainted, and an awning that was located over the door has been removed and will soon be
replaced. A contemporary railing has been installed around an outdoor dining patio (Attachment F,
40 Original Joe’s is located at 301 S. 1st St in San Jose, CA.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 22 Historic Resource Assessment
Images 11-12).
Interior
Seismic retrofit of the subject property was implemented in the mid-late-1990s. A complete drawing
set with sheets prepared Dyer Partnership, Inc of Woodland Hills and Vincent Dyer of Granada Hills
was reviewed. While not all drawings are dated, it appears the earlier drawings were prepared by
Dyer Partnership, Inc. around 1992 and the later drawings by Vincent Dyer around 1996. Drawings
show that retrofit generally consisted of minimally invasive addition of braced frames throughout the
ground floor tenant spaces and some floor joist connection between ground and second floors. The
retrofit doesn’t appear to have caused substantial damage to important historic fabric or loss of
integrity. According to notes on the drawings, the project was implemented over several years, due
to circumstances of existing lease agreements with tenants at the time.
Demolition
It should be noted that the subject property originally included a one-room, one-story revival-style
structure serving as a real estate sales office. This structure was located at the northwest corner of
the surface parking lot and appears in the historic Sanborn map labeled as a store. The building was
photographed and recorded in the 1983 survey form prepared for the property.41 It was demolished
after 1983, although the date of demolition is unknown. Its demolition does not appear to have
impacted significance or integrity of the extant building.
The following table summarizes exterior and interior alterations following the construction of the
building in 1925. A more complete description of all available building permits can be found in
Attachment F.42
Year Alteration
1940 Alteration of café first and second floor joists
1942 Construction of brick storage closet 5’6”x10’ (55 sq ft)
1948 Alteration of panel walls in three rooms of tenant space for a non-profit club
1951 Alteration of interior partitions
1953 Remodel front of stores
1954 Build apt-penthouse 3rd Fl
1955 New neon sign for apartments/restaurant
1957 Roof added over light-well, patios
1960 Sign permit for Bellevue Restaurant
1960 Sandblasting of exterior surfaces
1961 Addition of wind walls on west side and for penthouse
1962 Sign permit for “Wallace Furnished Apts Entrance” added along Ocean Ave elevation
1979 Convert tenant space from beauty shop to ice cream parlor (non-structural work)
1979 Restaurant remodel (interior) no additions
1981 Free-standing parking lot sign added (3’x12’x18”)
1992 Remodel corner tenant unit
1996 Alteration to easternmost storefront on south elevation ( then Gate of India
Restaurant), including new storefront windows and transoms, and new door in
existing openings; new ceramic tile bulkheads below windows; alterations to
southernmost window on east elevation, including new window in existing opening
41 Leslie Heumann, California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form and
Continuation Sheet, 1341 Ocean Avenue/101 Santa Monica Boulevard, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March
1983.
42 It should be noted that while an Architectural Review Board application for Boa Steakhouse, 2017, is
included in Attachment F, these alterations have not been implemented on the storefront.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 23 Historic Resource Assessment
and new ceramic tile bulkhead below window; and infill of existing window at east
elevation with brick (figs 87-87)
1999 Install illuminated channel letter “night appearance” sign at corner
2002 Install new 80-gallon 310,000 BTU heater
2004 Renovation of penthouse apartment on third floor
2004 Refinish first floor lobby, relocate 2 non-bearing partitions, replace light fixtures, repair
ceiling framing and patio deck windscreen, pipe penetration
2004 Restaurant tenant improvements including partitions, second floor framing
strengthening, plumbing and mechanical and electrical systems
2007 Alterations to south elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for
tenant Bar Pintxo (figs 88-90)
2008 Alterations to south elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for
Thai Dishes restaurant (now Stout Burgers and Beers), including addition of
suspended metal canopy, aluminum frame transom above storefront, and new
storefront doors (fig 91)
2009 Alterations to west elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for Blue
Plate Oysterette (current tenant) (fig 93)
2012-
2013
Alterations to south elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for
Stout Burgers and Beers, including brick veneer, metal awning, metal railing for
outdoor dining, signage, lighting, and closing one exterior opening
2017 Alterations to south elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for
Little Ruby including new awning, sign, opening in wall, and patio wall for outdoor
dining
2017 Alterations to south elevation storefront to accommodate tenant improvements for
Tumbi Craft Indian Kitchen including new paint, lighting, metal awning, signage, and
railing for outdoor dining.
Architect and Builder History
A.H. O’Brien
The architect listed on the original 1925 building permit for the subject property is A.H. O’Brien.
O’Brien was born in 1878, in or near Lake, Illinois. He is listed in the 1880 U.S. Census as the two-
year-old son of Michael and Sarah O’Brien.43 Michael O’Brien was a laborer and Sarah was a
housewife; both were born in Ireland. According to Census records, in 1910, he was employed as an
architect in Denver, Colorado.44 A National Register nomination for properties located on Colfax
Avenue in Denver, Colorado, indicates O’Brien designed a three-story hotel building, the Newhouse
Hotel, constructed in 1911 at the southeast corner of East Colfax and Grant Street.45 In 1915,
O’Brien is listed in the Los Angeles City Directory as a draftsman residing at 1324 Myrtle with M.S.
Yeager; his relationship to Yeager is unknown.46 In the 1920 Census, Arthur is listed as an architect
living with his brother in Los Angeles.47 In 1921, O’Brien is listed in the Los Angeles City Directory as
an architectural engineer residing at 627 ½ S. Olive, with an office at 6779 ½ Hollywood Blvd.48 Los
Angeles Times articles from 1924 and 1925 provide that O’Brien designed at least two buildings in
43 Arthur H. O’Brien, listing in 1880 United States Census, Lake, Illinois, June 9, 1880, ancestry.com.
44 Name of city illegible on Census record (Arthur H. O’Brien, listing in 1910 United States Census, Denver
County, Illinois, 20 Apr 1910 (ancestry.com)).
45 Thomas H. Simmons and R. Laurie Simmons of Front Range Research Associates, Inc., National
Register of Historic Places nomination for Commercial Resources of the East Colfax Avenue Corridor, Prepared for
the Colfax Business Improvement District, March 4, 2009, http://oahp.historycolorado.org/crforms-
edumat/pdfs/653.pdf.
46 Arthur H. O’Brien, listing in 1915 Los Angeles City Directory, Los Angeles Directory Company, p 1545.
47 Arthur O’Brien, listing in 1920 United States Census, Los Angeles, California, 8 (day of month illegible)
1920 (ancestry.com).
48 Arthur H. O’Brien, listing in 1921 Los Angeles City Directory, p 1934 (ancestry.com).
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 24 Historic Resource Assessment
Los Angeles: a three-story apartment-house at 2819 Leeward Avenue for L.W. Weltzman at a cost
of $120,000 (extant),49 and a three-story commercial building on the southeast corner of 7th and
Ceres streets, for G.G. Stewart, also at a cost of $120,000 (appears to be extant).50 The subject
property was designed by O’Brien in 1925; no other records of additional buildings designed by
O’Brien were found. O’Brien is not included in the 1932 Los Angeles City Directory, indicating he
may have moved away from the city by that time. There are City of San Diego directories that
include an Arthur O’Brien draftsman in the late 1920s and 1930s, but it is unclear if it is the same
O’Brien.
Research has not shown O’Brien to be a master architect, nor has research indicated O’Brien was
especially prolific, though he is associated with design of buildings constructed in Colorado and
California. O’Brien is not included in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) database of architects.
Based on the general lack of information readily available on O’Brien’s architectural career, it is
assumed that while he designed buildings that were constructed, he did not likely have a substantial
impact, and it is unlikely any building would be significant for its association with him. It appears he
specialized in design of two and three-story mixed-use buildings, but further research is needed to
substantiate this claim. O’Brien does not appear to have designed other buildings currently listed as
Santa Monica Landmarks; thus, he is likely not an important Santa Monica architect.
A.V. Perkinson
The contractor listed on the original building permit for construction of the subject property is A.V.
Perkinson. Perkinson appears to have been an active contractor in the Los Angeles area from the
early 1900s through the 1920s. He had few commissions in the early 1930s and went bankrupt in
1933; the assets of his company, A.V. Perkinson, Inc. were sold at auction.51 Despite the fact that
Perkinson held contracts to construct several properties in the Los Angeles area, no evidence has
been found to indicate that the subject property would be significant for its association with
Perkinson.
A 1925 advertisement for Perkinson in the Los Angeles Times provides that he had an office at 4362
S. Hoover St in Los Angeles at that time, offering engineering and general construction services,
with partner W. M. Perdue, Engineer.52 Perkinson and Perdue specialized in commercial buildings,
touting over 20 years of experience in Los Angeles construction. In addition, a 1925 Los Angeles
Times article identifies Perkinson as a local designer and builder, indicating he may be responsible
for some building design, although further information on that topic is needed to learn more.53
According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, other projects he constructed around the same time
in the Los Angeles area include but are not limited to the following:
• 1924: New police substation at 231 West 77th St, Los Angeles, $64,850 contract.54
• 1926: Two-story plus basement brick theater, store and office building on Lankershim Blvd
for Hollywood Theaters, Inc., $200,000 contract.55
• 1928: Four-story, Norman-English style apartment-house containing 85 rooms at Sixth St
49 John H. C. Stingle, “Greatest Year Indicated in Construction Work,” Los Angeles Times, February 3, 1924,
E9.
50 “Announce Building Projects,” Los Angeles Times, January 31, 1924, A8.
51 Final article found on Perkinson’s building activity in the Los Angeles Times is in the 1930s (“Spanish and
Portuguese Jews Will Build Church,” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1931, D3; “Auction Sale No. 2 Bankrupt
Building Contractors Machinery & Equipment Assets of A. V. Perkinson, Inc.” Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1933,
10).
52 “Display Ad 105,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 1925, E8.
53 “First American Domicile Found,” Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1926, F2.
54 “Builders Busily Engaged,” Los Angeles Times, December 14, 1924, E10.
55 “Theater Job Awarded,” Los Angeles Times, February 7, 1926, E11. This is likely the extant El Portal
Theater in North Hollywood, designed by noted architect L.A. Smith and designated a City of Los Angeles Historic-
Cultural Monument, although further research is necessary to substantiate this connection.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 25 Historic Resource Assessment
and Hobart St, Los Angeles, $200,000 contract.56
• 1928: Two-story, Class C store, office and apartment building at the northwest corner of 54th
St and Tenth Ave, Los Angeles, for the Citizens’ Mortgage and Investment Company,
$45,000 contract.57
• 1928: Two-story, brick store and office building at Inglewood for C. W. Higley, $40,000
contract.58
• 1929: One-story, brick store building at Euclid and Virgil, Santa Monica, for E. S. Dennison,
$30,000 contract.59
• 1930: Los Angeles headquarters for Martin-Perry Corporation, the largest manufacturers of
commercial truck bodies in the world at the time, 1415 S. Alameda St, 15,000 sq ft (no
contract amount given).60
• 1930: Temple of the Sephardic Community in Los Angeles, at Santa Barbara and LaSalle
Avenues, Los Angeles (no contract amount given).61
56 “Four-Story Unit Projected,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1928, E3.
57 “Sewer Line Rights Obtained for City,” Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1928, E3.
58 “Mexican Dam to Help Wide Area,” Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1928, E9.
59 “Store Building Planned,” Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1929, D6.
60 “Corporation to Erect Factory in Los Angeles,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1930, D1.
61 “Spanish and Portuguese Jews Will Build Church,” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1931, D3. Today the
temple is housed in a facility located at 10500 Wilshire Boulevard, the Sephardic Temple Tifereth Israel,
http://sephardictemple.org/our-history/.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 26 Historic Resource Assessment
VII. HISTORIC CONTEXTS
Spanish Colonial Revival
The subject property is an example of an altered Spanish Colonial Revival building. Spanish Colonial
architecture was preceded by the Mission Revival style. This style, started in the late 19th century in
California, drew inspiration from the modest, adobe dwellings the Spanish constructed in the area
starting in the late 18th century.62 Page A. Brown’s California Building at the 1893 Columbian
Exposition in Chicago is credited as one of the earliest buildings of this style.63 The style remained
popular during the early 20th century, and was profiled in several local periodicals including The
Western Architect, Sunset, and The Architect and Engineer.64 The style was also included in house
plan books; Sears Roebuck and Co. sold plans for “Mission type” house in the late 1910s.65
As the emerging architects of the 1910s and 20s were increasingly educated not through
apprenticeship, but through formal education, these graduates sought to develop a more learned
version of the Mission style more based on historical accuracy. In 1915 Bertram G. Goodhue and
Carleton M. Winslow constructed buildings for the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego,
in what became known as Spanish Colonial Revival, and more specifically, an elaborate form of this
style known as Churriguesque, which featured Spanish baroque inspired ornamentation.66 The high
style and flamboyant Churrigueresque details expressed at the Exposition were picked up and
adapted to a wide variety of buildings, including vernacular domestic architecture, throughout
southern California. The term Churrigueresque is named for a family of Spanish architects and
sculptors who transformed and embellished the Spanish Baroque.67 Lavish and ornamental by
nature, Churrigueresque features are characterized by contorted and highly elaborated architectural
details and motifs.68 The designs introduced at the Exposition were based more accurately on actual
Spanish buildings.69
Drawing from a broader spectrum of precedents than the earlier style, Spanish Colonial Revival was
employed for nearly all types of buildings—single and multi-family residential, commercial, and
institutional—and therefore could range in height from one to multiple stories. The popularity and
growth of the style helped formulate a regional identity that became linked to a romanticized portrait
of California’s origins as New Spain. Most Spanish Colonial Revival buildings are asymmetrical,
although a popular bungalow subtype (often labeled a “Mission Revival bungalow”) was markedly
symmetrical. Almost all Spanish Colonial Revival buildings are recognizable by stucco-covered
exterior walls and red clay tile roofs. Most roofs are gabled, or gabled and flat, although hipped roofs
were also utilized.
Spanish Colonial Revival architecture is often defined by the following character-defining features:
• Exterior walls of stucco
• Low-pitched gabled or hipped roof covered in Mission or Spanish red clay tiles or flat roof
with parapet wall that may be edged with tile
• Shallow eaves
• Arched and flat-headed openings
• Wing walls
62 David Gebhard, “The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930),” University of
California, Santa Barbara, 131.
63 Ibid., 133.
64 Ibid.
65 Virginia McAlester, Field Guide to American Houses, 512.
66 David Gebhard, “The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930),” University of
California, Santa Barbara, 131.
67 Gleye, 88.
68 Philippa Lewis & Gillian Darley, Dictionary of Ornament, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986), 82.
69 Virginia McAlester, Field Guide to American Houses, 522.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 27 Historic Resource Assessment
• Tile vents
• Can be combined with a wide range of decorative features and materials
• Garages, if present, are usually detached
Notable examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in the Los Angeles area include the Santa
Monica Professional Building, Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant No. 1, W.I. Simonson Mercedes-
Benz, and Union Station, among many others.
Relationship to Subject Property
While the subject property was designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, a significant number
of alterations have compromised the architectural character of the building. These include the
removal of original storefront windows, infill of triangular recess above main entry, and removal of
decorative enframements around storefront entrances. Despite these alterations, the 2017 HRI
update described the subject property as being “an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival
architecture as applied to a commercial building.”70 Due to its numerous alterations, the building is
left with few character-defining features of the style, and we therefore find the subject property to not
be an excellent example of this style. This report contains a comparison of the subject property with
designated historic resources in Santa Monica that are excellent examples of the style.
Mixed-use commercial building and apartment-hotel property types
The subject property is a mixed-use commercial building, originally featuring an apartment-hotel on
the second floor, and ground floor commercial. An apartment hotel “is defined as a hotel containing a
room, or more commonly a suite of rooms, which includes facilities for dining and some form of food
preparation.”71 It typically provided common spaces and housekeeping, like a hotel. On the original
building permit, the property is described as “stores and apartments,” and a 1955 building permit for
addition of new signage indicates the portion of the building with the address 1357 Ocean Ave
served as an apartment-hotel that offered furnished rooms.72 According to city directories, residential
tenants through the early 1960s did not tend to stay in the building for more than a year or two.
As the subject property is a mixed-use building, with ground floor commercial and upper floor
residential, it is relevant to compare the building to other notable examples of mixed-use commercial
buildings and apartment-hotel buildings in Santa Monica. The subject property is not found
significant as an example of either property type, as both property types were common in Santa
Monica and in the larger Los Angeles area around the subject property’s date of construction in
1925. Design of the subject property to serve both commercial and apartment-hotel purposes was
not trend-setting in the mid-1920s, as there was a dramatic proliferation of similar properties
regionally during those years. There are numerous other better examples of the mixed-use
commercial and apartment-hotel property types in Santa Monica, such as those listed below.73
• The Georgian Hotel, a 1931 Art Deco building constructed as an apartment-hotel and located
at 1415 Ocean Ave and designed by architect M. Eugene Durfee. The property is listed as a
Santa Monica Landmark.
• The Embassy Hotel Apartments, a 1927 Spanish Colonial Revival apartment-hotel building
70 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update, Downtown Community Plan Area,
2017, Appendix B-Downtown HRI Property List, 4.
71 Daniel Prosser, “SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement, Commercial Development, 1859-
1980/Hotels, 1870-1980 Draft,” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, August 2016, 61.
72 Building permit for new sign at 101 Santa Monica Blvd, City of Santa Monica Permit No B17706, May 12,
1955.
73 Los Angeles County Historic Property Data File, Office of Historic Preservation, 15 March 2011; ICF
Jones & Stokes, Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for the City of
Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, November 2010.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 28 Historic Resource Assessment
located at 1001 3rd St and designed by architect Arthur E. Harvey. The property is listed as a
Santa Monica Landmark and has been identified as a contributor to a National Register-
eligible historic district.
• The Lido Hotel, a 1931 four-story Art Deco mixed-use building with commercial on the
ground floor and apartments on the upper floors, located at 1455 4th St and designed by
architect Harbin F. Hunter. The property is a Santa Monica Landmark.
Pre-World War II Commercial Development
During the 1920s and 1930s, growth in the commercial sector led to an increase in buildings
constructed in downtown Santa Monica. This was in part influenced by the city’s growing population;
during the 1920s the population increased from approximately 15,000 to 37,000, the largest in its
history. New businesses, and resort/tourist-related developments followed, resulting in two- to three-
story buildings lining the streets of downtown. This is particularly evident in the 3rd street promenade,
which remains dominated by a combination of old and new buildings of these heights.
Relationship to Subject Property
While the subject property was constructed during the 1920s downtown commercial expansion in the
City, it is not significant for its association with this time period. It has never contained any
commercial tenants that have been found to be significant in the history of the City.
Route 66 in Santa Monica
The subject property cannot be found significant for its association with Route 66. The following brief
history of Route 66 in Santa Monica is excerpted from the historic context statement prepared for the
2010 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update. While it is commonly assumed that
the termination of Santa Monica Blvd at Ocean Ave is the end of Route 66, the historic highway
never actually terminated there. The subject property is not actually located on the historic highway;
as a result, it cannot be found significant for association with Route 66.
U.S. Route 66 (also known as the Will Rogers Highway after the humorist, and colloquially
known as the "Main Street of America" or the "Mother Road") was a highway in the U.S.
Highway System. One of the original U.S. highways, Route 66 was established on November
11, 1926. However, road signs did not go up until the following year. The famous highway
originally ran from Chicago, Illinois, through Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, and California, before ending in downtown Los Angeles at 7th and
Broadway, covering a total of 2,448 miles. Route 66 underwent many improvements and
realignments over its lifetime, changing its path and overall length. Many of the realignments
gave travelers faster or safer routes or detoured around city congestion. In 1936, Route 66
was extended from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, terminating at US 101 ALT,
today the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard (a segment of State
Route 1). Even though there is a plaque dedicating Route 66 as the Will Rogers Highway
placed at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, the highway
never terminated there.74
It should be noted that the National Park Service commissioned preparation of a nationwide historic
context statement for Route 66 in 2004, the Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context Study.75
That study provides that in the late 1920s, Route 66 “…was extended to within a few blocks of the
74 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, Prepared for City of Santa
Monica Planning & Community Development Department, Prepared by ICF Jones and Stokes, November 2010, 47.
75 Michael Cassity, Ph.D., Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context Study, Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program, National Trails System Office – Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, December 15, 2004, available at http://www.nps.gov/rt66/HistSig/CompleteContext.pdf.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 29 Historic Resource Assessment
Piers of the Pacific at Santa Monica,”76 although more specific information about the end location of
Route 66 is not provided, nor it is there reference to the subject property. The National Park Service
and the California Preservation Foundation (CPF), a statewide non-profit historic preservation
leadership, advocacy and education organization, have been collaborating on a Route 66 study.
Consulting firm Mead & Hunt have been documenting the historic road alignments and historic
resources of the stretch of Route 66 between Pasadena and Santa Monica.77 In 2012 a National
Register Multiple Property Documentation Form “U.S. Highway 66 in California,” was added to the
National Register of Historic Places. This designation describes the route and its history, including
the relevant historic associations with the route including automobile dealerships and roadside
attractions.78 The designation does include mention of the subject property.
Comparison with Like Properties
A comparison with like properties is a method used to evaluate the integrity of a property, described
in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. A
comparison with like properties helps provide the evaluator of a property a standard by which to
evaluate. The following provides descriptions of other Spanish Colonial Revival commercial buildings
in Santa Monica against which to evaluate the subject property.
Santa Monica Professional Building, 710 Wilshire Boulevard
Located at the corner of Wilshire and 7th, the Santa Monica Professional Building was constructed in
1928 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and designed by architect Arthur E. Harvey (Attachment
H, Image 1). Designed to house offices for medical professionals and lawyers, the six-story building
has a tall first floor podium level and a five-story Y-shaped tower above. The building has
expressive, original Churrigueresque detailing particularly along the sixth floor which features an
extensive cast stone and waste mold concrete relief. The building, undergoing rehabilitation since
2016, previously had mostly minor alterations throughout its history. It was designated a Santa
Monica Landmark in 2005.
Relationship to subject property
Unlike the Santa Monica Professional Building, the subject property has suffered extensive exterior
alterations throughout its history, including the removal of the original storefront windows, infill of the
triangular recess above the main entry, and removal of decorative enframements around storefront
entrances. These alterations have had an effect on the integrity of the building, and the loss of some
decorative elements has made the building less expressive of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
Aside from any alterations to the subject property, the building originally featured less character-
defining features of the style and were not as well executed as at the Santa Monica Professional
Building, including cast stone finials, original cast stone entry and original storefront transom
windows. The addition of the third-floor roof penthouse altered the massing and proportions of the
building as well. Though both are mixed-use commercial buildings constructed in the Spanish
Colonial Revival style, the Santa Monica Professional Building is a better executed example of this
style and building type in Santa Monica.
Bay Builders Exchange Building, 1501-1509 4th Street
Located at the southeast corner of Broadway and 4th, the Bay Builder’s Exchange Building
(Attachment H, Image 2) was constructed in 1927 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style by Eugene
Durfee, the same architect who designed the Georgian Hotel (designated Landmark 1995) on Ocean
76 Michael Cassity, 85.
77 “2017 Annual Giving—Support CPF, Partnership with the National Park Service to document the “Mother
Road”—Route 66 Study,” California Preservation Foundation, https://californiapreservation.org/help/donate/.
78 “U.S. Highway 66 in California,” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation
Form, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 3, 2012.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 30 Historic Resource Assessment
Avenue. The L-shaped building is two stories, with a third story tower at the corner, and was
designed to have first floor retail and upper floor offices. It features cast-iron storefronts, decorative
grille work, and Churrigueresque decorative art stone bands above the windows on all three stories.
It was designated a Santa Monica Landmark in 2009.
Relationship to subject property
Unlike the Bay Builder’s Exchange Building, the subject property has suffered extensive exterior
alterations throughout its history, including the removal of the original storefront windows, infill of the
triangular recess above the main entry, and removal of decorative enframements around storefront
entrances. These alterations have had an effect on the integrity of the building, and the loss of some
decorative elements has made the building less expressive of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
The Bay Builder’s Exchange building retains more of its original features and detailing, including
cast-iron storefronts, original casement windows, decorative grille work, and decorative art stone
bands. The Bay Builder’s Exchange Building is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival
Architecture, the subject property is not.
Sovereign Hotel, 205 Washington Avenue
The Sovereign Hotel, located at the corner of Washington and 2nd, was constructed as an apartment
hotel in 1927 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style designed by architect Kurt Meyer-Radon. The
five-story building is rectangular in plan and has a landscaped inner courtyard. Spanish Colonial
Revival detailing includes arcades, arched windows and porches, concrete grilles, corbelled
balconies with wrought iron fences, and gabled red clay tile roofs. The property is listed as a Santa
Monica Landmark and is listed in the National Register.
Relationship to subject property
Unlike the subject property, the Sovereign Hotel has substantially more original Spanish Colonial
Revival detailing. The extensive exterior alterations the building has suffered, including the removal
of the original storefront windows, infill of the triangular recess above the main entry, and removal of
decorative enframements around storefront entrances, have had an effect on the integrity of the
building, and the loss of some decorative elements has made the building less expressive of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style. The subject property fails to rise to the level of integrity and
significance expressed by the Sovereign Hotel.
Parkhurst Building, 185 Pier Avenue
Located at the corner of Pier and Main, the Parkhurst Building (Attachment H, Image 4) was
constructed in 1927 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style designed by the architectural firm of
Marsh, Smith, and Powell. Designed as a small office/retail building, character-defining features
include “decorative ironwork above the first-floor storefronts and elsewhere, embellished panels
showcasing motifs such as scallops, fish, stylized plants, and vases, a Moorish-style perforated
screen on the Pier Avenue side, a tile mosaic featuring an equestrian theme (also on the Pier
Avenue side), multi-sided tower with patterned brickwork, and the essential low-pitched, red tile
roof.”79 The property is listed as a Santa Monica Landmark and is listed on the National Register.
Relationship to subject property
Unlike the Parkhurst Building, the subject property has suffered extensive exterior alterations
throughout its history, including the removal of the original storefront windows, infill of the triangular
recess above the main entry, and removal of decorative enframements around storefront entrances.
These alterations have had an effect on the integrity of the building, and the loss of some decorative
79 “Parkhurst Building,” Santa Monica Conservancy, http://www.smconservancy.org/property/parkhurst-
building/.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 31 Historic Resource Assessment
elements has made the building less expressive of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The Parkhurst
Building retains more of its original features and detailing, including embellished panels, Moorish
perforated screen, tile mosaics, storefront windows, decorative art stone, and multi-sided tower with
patterned brickwork.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 32 Historic Resource Assessment
VIII. HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The subject property was evaluated under the contexts of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture,
mixed-use commercial buildings and apartment hotels, early 20th century commercial development
in the City of Santa Monica, and Route 66. This report finds the property ineligible for listing locally
as a Santa Monica Landmark or contributor to a Historic District, in the California Register or in the
National Register. Thus, the subject property does not appear to be a historical resource for
purposes of CEQA review.
A historic resource assessment typically first identifies whether a property is potentially significant
and only if the property is found significant does it evaluate integrity. Integrity is the degree to which
the property retains the physical features that convey its significance. The Santa Monica Landmarks
and Historic Districts Ordinance does not specifically address integrity.
National and California Registers
Based on the analysis in this report, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing in the
California or National Registers. Evaluation of the subject property under each of the four California
and National Register Criterion is set forth below.
1/A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history and cultural heritage.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture.
Based on comparison with other more notable examples, the subject property was not found
to be a significant example of this style. Further, if the subject property were hypothetically
found significant as an example of the style, it would not retain sufficient integrity to convey
its significance, due to losses of important historic fabric, as listed above.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of a mixed-use commercial building and
apartment hotels. It was not found to be a significant example of this property type, and there
are numerous other buildings regionally that better represent this property type.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with early 20th century commercial
development in Santa Monica. The subject property was not found to be associated with any
commercial tenant that had a significant impact on commercial development in the city;
therefore, it is not significant for its association with early 20th century commercial
development.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with Route 66. While it is commonly
thought that Route 66 terminated at Santa Monica and Ocean, the highway actually ended at
another nearby location in the City; thus, the subject property is not significant for its
association with Route 66.
2/B: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with original property owner S.
Malsman, architect A. H. O’Brien and builder A. V. Perkinson. It was also evaluated for its
association with the long-time Belle-Vue Restaurant tenant. Research did not indicate the
subject property is significant for any of these associations.
3/C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 33 Historic Resource Assessment
The subject property was evaluated as an example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture.
While representative of the style, and originally a good example, the subject property has
sustained too many alterations to convey significance as an example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture from 1925. The subject property was never an excellent example of this
style.
4/D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The subject property cannot reasonably be expected to yield information important in
prehistory or history.
California Environmental Quality Act
While the subject property was identified in the 2017 HRI Update, and the DCP describes that it
should therefore be presumed to be “historic[al] resources pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act,” because of the findings stated in this report, the subject property should not be
considered an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
The findings of the Downtown Community Plan Area described the building as a “excellent example
of Spanish Colonial architecture,” but based on a comparison with other buildings designed in the
same style, and when taking into account the numerous alterations that have occurred to the
building that have removed features of this style, the subject property is not eligible for listing at the
federal, state, or local levels, and should not be considered a historical resource for the purposes of
CEQA.
City of Santa Monica
Based on the analysis in this report, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing as a
Santa Monica Landmark for contributor to a Historic District. Evaluation of the subject property under
each criterion of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance is set forth below.
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or
architectural history of the City.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture.
While representative of the style, and originally a good example, the subject property has
sustained too many alterations to convey significance as an example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture from 1925.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of an apartment hotel and mixed-use
commercial building. It was not found to be a significant example of this property type, and
there are numerous other buildings regionally that better represent this property type.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with early 20th century commercial
development in Santa Monica. The subject property was not found to be associated with any
commercial tenant that had a significant impact on commercial development in the city;
therefore, it is not significant for its association with early 20th century commercial
development.
The subject property was also evaluated for its association with Route 66. While it is
commonly thought that Route 66 terminated at Santa Monica and Ocean, the highway
actually ended at another nearby location in the City; thus, the subject property is not
significant for its association with Route 66.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 34 Historic Resource Assessment
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture.
While representative of the style, and originally a good example, the subject property has
sustained too many alterations to convey significance as an example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture from 1925.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with original property owner S.
Malsman, architect A. H. O’Brien and builder A. V. Perkinson. Research did not indicate the
subject property is significant for any of these associations.
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 to such a study.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture.
While representative of the style, and originally a good example, the subject property has
sustained too many alterations to convey significance as an example of Spanish Colonial
Revival architecture from 1925.
The subject property was evaluated as an example of a mixed-use commercial building
property type. Based on comparison with other more notable examples, the subject property
was not found to be a significant example of either property type. Further, if the subject
property were hypothetically found significant as an example of either property type, it would
not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance, due to losses of important historic
fabric, as listed above.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect.
The subject property was evaluated for its association with original property owner S.
Malsman, architect A. H. O’Brien and builder A. V. Perkinson. It was also evaluated for its
association with the long-time Belle-Vue Restaurant tenant. Research did not indicate the
subject property is significant for any of these associations.
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.
While it can be argued that the termination of Santa Monica at Ocean is a familiar visual
feature of the City, this fact alone is not enough to make the subject property eligible for this
association.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 35 Historic Resource Assessment
IX. Bibliography
Books, Articles and Documents
California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks & Recreation Technical
Assistance Bulletin #8, User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes &
Historic Resources Inventory Directory, 2004, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.
Gebhard, David. “The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California (1895-1930). The Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1967).
Lewis, Philippa and Gillian Darley. Dictionary of Ornament, New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002.
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/.
National Register Bulletin #24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis For Preservation Planning,
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1977, revised 1985.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/nrb24.pdf
Seifert, Donna J., et al. National Register Bulletin, Defining Boundaries for National Register
Properties, Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995, revised 1997.
City Directories
Ballenger & Richards Thirty-Sixth Annual Denver City Directory for 1908, listing for Arthur H.
O’Brien, Denver: Ballenger & Richards, 1908, p1021, ancestry.com.
Los Angeles City Directory 1915, listing for Arthur H. O’Brien, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory
Company, 1915, p1545, ancestry.com April 19, 2012.
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Bay Cities Directory 1930-31, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co.,
1930.
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Bay Cities Directory 1933, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co.,
1933.
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Bay Cities Directory 1936, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co.,
1936.
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Bay Cities Directory 1938, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co.,
1938.
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Los Angeles City Directory, listing for Arthur H. O’Brien, Los Angeles:
The Los Angeles Directory Company, p1934 <ancestry.com> (19 April 2012).
Los Angeles Directory Co’s Santa Monica City Directory 1940, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory
Co., 1940.
Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory 1954, Los Angeles: R.L. Polk & Co., 1955.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 36 Historic Resource Assessment
R. L. Polk & Co’s Santa Monica City Directory 1952-53, Los Angeles: R.L. Polk & Co., 1953.
San Diego Directory Co’s San Diego City and County Directory1929, listing for Arthur H. O’Brien,
San Diego: San Diego Directory Co., 1929, p631 <ancestry.com> (19 April 2012).
Santa Monica City Directory 1947-48, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1948.
Santa Monica 1958-1959 City Directory, Los Angeles: S & K Publications, 1958.
Santa Monica 1960-1961 City Directory, Santa Monica: S & K Publications, Inc., 1960.
Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle and Westgate Directory 1923-1924, Los Angeles: Los
Angeles Directory Co, 1923.
Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle and Westgate Directory 1925, Los Angeles: Los
Angeles Directory Co, 1925.
Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle and Brentwood Heights Directory 1927, Los Angeles:
Los Angeles Directory Co, 1927.
Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Sawtelle and Brentwood Heights City Directory 1928, Los Angeles: Los
Angeles Directory Co, 1928.
Historic Resource Evaluations and Studies
Cassity, Michael, Ph.D. Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context Study, prepared for Route 66
Corridor Preservation Program, National Trails System Office – Intermountain Region, National
Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico, December 15, 2004.
http://www.nps.gov/rt66/HistSig/CompleteContext.pdf.
California Preservation Foundation. “Update to Keeper of the National Register.” California Route 66
Study. http://sites.google.com/site/californiaroute66study/updates/tokeeperofthenationalregister.
The Downtown Community Plan, City of Santa Monica, 2017,
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/Downtown-Specific-
Plan/FINAL%20DCP_web.pdf.
Downtown Community Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2013091056, City of
Santa Monica, April 2017, file:///X:/Jobs%20Current/Santa%20Monica%20-%20HLKK%20-
%20101%20Santa%20Monica/Report%20update/DCP%20Final%20EIR-
Webview%20version%20(1).pdf.
Heumann, Leslie. California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form
and Continuation Sheet, 1341 Ocean Avenue/101 Santa Monica Boulevard, prepared for the
City of Santa Monica, March 1983.
Historic Resources Group, Architectural Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic
Resources Inventory Update, Downtown Community Plan Area, City of Santa Monica, 2017,
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/Downtown-Specific-
Plan/Downtown%20HRI.pdf.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 37 Historic Resource Assessment
ICF Jones & Stokes. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report.
Prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department.
November 2010.
Los Angeles County Historic Property Data File. Office of Historic Preservation, March 15, 2011.
Simmons, Thomas H. and R. Laurie, Front Range Research Associates, Inc. National Register of
Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Commercial Resources of the East
Colfax Avenue Corridor. Prepared for the Colfax Business Improvement District, revised March
4, 2009. http://oahp.historycolorado.org/crforms-edumat/pdfs/653.pdf.
Los Angeles Times Articles
“Announce Building Projects,” Los Angeles Times, January 31, 1924, A8.
“Auction Sale No. 2 Bankrupt Building Contractors Machinery & Equipment Assets of A. V.
Perkinson, Inc.” Los Angeles Times, October 22, 1933, 10.
“Boulevard Group Forms.” Los Angeles Times, April 22, 1928, E4.
“Builders Busily Engaged.” Los Angeles Times, December 14, 1924, E10.
“Corporation to Erect Factory in Los Angeles.” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1930, D1.
“Deal Made for Corner Downtown.” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1929, A1.
“Display Ad 105.” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 1925, E8.
“Downtown Structure Sale One of Large Realty Deals.” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1945, A2.
“First American Domicile Found.” Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1926, F2.
“Four-Story Unit Projected.” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1928, E3.
“Huge Sum in Series of Deals.” Los Angeles Times, July 3, 1927, E1.
Huneven, Michelle. “Restaurant Review: Crocodile Rocks at the Beach.” September 17, 1993.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-17/entertainment/ca-36060_1_crocodile-cafe.
Huneven, Michelle. “Restaurant Review: Santa Monica’s Belle-Vue Lets In the Light.” Los Angeles
Times, April 19,1991. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-04-19/entertainment/ca-424_1_santa-
monica-bouelvard.
“Improvement Announced for Wilshire Area.” Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1929, D2.
“Mexican Dam to Help Wide Area.” Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1928, E9.
“Millions Paid for Property.” Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1926, A1.
“Santa Monica Transfer Made.” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 1941, E3.
“Sewer Line Rights Obtained for City.” Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1928, E3.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 38 Historic Resource Assessment
Stingle, John H. C. “Greatest Year Indicated in Construction Work.” Los Angeles Times, February 3,
1924, E9.
“Spanish and Portuguese Jews Will Build Church.” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1931, D3
“Store Building Planned.” Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1929, D6.
“Theater Job Awarded.” Los Angeles Times, February 7, 1926, E11.
United States Census
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1880 United States Census, Lake, Illinois, listing for Arthur H. O’Brien,
June 9, 1880, Page 21, Supervisor’s District 1, Enumeration District 238, ancestry.com.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1910 United States Census, Denver County, Illinois, Precinct 3, listing
for Arthur H. O’Brien, April 20, 1910, sheet 6, Supervisor’s District 1, Enumeration District 53,
Ward of City 2, ancestry.com.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1920 United States Census, Los Angeles, California, listing for Arthur H.
O’Brien, n.d., sheet 3, Supervisor’s District 8, ancestry.com.
Websites
City of Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.36.100(a) and (b), City of Santa Monica, California,
http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonica/.
Perry Mason Episode 224 Season 8. “The Case of the Blonde Bonanza,” first aired December 17,
1964. http://www.perrymasontvseries./wiki/index.php/Extras/Show224.
Sephardic Temple Tifereth Israel, organization website, http://sephardictemple.org/our-history/.
March 5, 2018 101 Santa Monica
Page 39 Historic Resource Assessment
X. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contemporary Images
Attachment B: Historic Images
Attachment C: Maps and Aerials
Attachment D: Original Building Permit
Attachment E: Drawings
Attachment F: Alterations
Attachment G: List of Tenants
Attachment H: Images of Like Properties
Attachment I: Previous Surveys
Attachment J: Technical Assistance Bulletin #8, User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource
Status Codes
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
101 Santa Monica
Santa Monica, california
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 1: 101 Santa Monica, view southeast (Chattel, 2012)
Image 2: 101 Santa Monica, west elevation, view east (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 3: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2018)
Image 4: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northeast (Chattel, 2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 5: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northwest (Chattel, 2018)
Image 6: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 7: 101 Santa Monica, east , view northwest (Chattel, 2012)
Image 8: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view southwest (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 9: 101 Santa Monica, surface parking lot, north elevation, view southwest
(Chattel, 2012)
Image 10: 101 Santa Monica, north elevation, view south(Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 11: 101 Santa Monica, west elevation, view east (Chattel, 2012)
Image 12: 101 Santa Monica, interior Blue Plate Oysterette, view west (Chattel,
2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 14: 101 Santa Monica, (Chattel, 2012)
Image 13: 101 Santa Monica, entry detail, west elevation, view east (Chattel,
2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 15: 101 Santa Monica, interior Boa Steakhouse (Chattel, 2018)
Image 16: 101 Santa Monica, interior Boa Steakhouse (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 18: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northeast (Chattel, 2018)
Image 17: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 19: 101 Santa Monica, interior Little Ruby (Chattel, 2018)
Image 20: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northeast (Chattel, 2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 21: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northeast (Chattel, 2018)
Image 22: 101 Santa Monica, interior Stout (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 23: 101 Santa Monica, overhead doors at Stout (Chattel, 2018)
Image 24: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view northwest (Chattel, 2012)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 25: 101 Santa Monica, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2018)
Image 26: 101 Santa Monica, interior Tumbi (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 27: 101 Santa Monica, interior stair to second floor (Chattel, 2018)
Image 28: 101 Santa Monica, second floor landing (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 29: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor corridor (Chattel, 2018)
Image 30: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit door (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 31: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit bedroom (Chattel, 2018)
Image 32: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit bedroom (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 33: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit kitchen (Chattel, 2018)
Image 34: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit kitchen (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 35: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor unit bathroom (Chattel, 2018)
Image 36: 101 Santa Monica, corridor skylight, second floor (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 37: 101 Santa Monica, courtyard at north elevation (Chattel, 2018)
Image 38: 101 Santa Monica, courtyard at north elevation (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 39: 101 Santa Monica, courtyard at north elevation (Chattel, 2018)
Image 40: 101 Santa Monica, exterior stair to roof from courtyard (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 41: 101 Santa Monica, typical second floor windows (Chattel, 2018)
Image 42: 101 Santa Monica, roof, view north (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 43: 101 Santa Monica, roof, view west(Chattel, 2018)
Image 44: 101 Santa Monica, roof, view northwest (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 45: 101 Santa Monica, roof penthouse, view north (Chattel, 2018)
Image 46: 101 Santa Monica, roof, view northeast (Chattel, 2018)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment A: contemporAry ImAges
chAttel, Inc. | hIstorIc preservAtIon consultAnts
Image 47: 101 Santa Monica, pyramidal roof, view southwest (Chattel, 2018)
Image 48: 101 Santa Monica, pyramidal roof detail, view south (Chattel, 2018)
AttAchment B: historic imAges
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, ca
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 1: Undated postcard (front), south and west elevations, view northeast (ebay)
Image 2: Undated postcard (back) (ebay)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 3: Undated mid-century postcard (front), south and west elevations, view norheast
(cardcow.com)
Image 4: Undated mid-century postcard (back) (ebay)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 5: Undated postcard (front), south and west elevations, view northeast (ebay)
Image 6: Subject property Ocean Avenue storefront at left, film still from Perry Mason Season 8,
Episode 224 “The Case of the Blond Bonanza,” December 17, 1964 (http://perrymasontvseries.
com/wiki/index.php/extras/show224)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 7: Subject property Ocean Avenue storefront at left, film still from Perry Mason
Season 8, Episode 224 “The Case of the Blond Bonanza,” December 17, 1964 (http://
perrymasontvseries.com/wiki/index.php/extras/show224)
Image 8: Subject property Ocean Avenue storefront at left, film still from Perry Mason
Season 8, Episode 224 “The Case of the Blond Bonanza,” December 17, 1964 (http://
perrymasontvseries.com/wiki/index.php/extras/show224)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 9: Subject property Ocean Avenue storefront at left, film still from Perry Mason Season 8,
Episode 224 “The Case of the Blond Bonanza,” December 17, 1964 (http://perrymasontvseries.
com/wiki/index.php/extras/show224)
Image 10: Crocodile Café storefront, view northeast (scans from City Planning Department files,
1993-2004)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 11: Southwest corner, view northeast (scans from City Planning Department files,
1993-2004)
Image 12: West elevation, view east (scans from City Planning Department files, 1993-2004)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
Image 13: South elevation, view north (scans from City Planning Department files, 1993-2004)
Image 14: South elevation, view north (scans from City Planning Department files, 1993-2004)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment B: historic imAges
chAttel, inc. | historic PreservAtion consultAnts
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AttAchment c: mAps And AeriAls
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, ca
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment c: mAps And AeriAls
chAttel, inc. | historic preservAtion consultAnts
Image 1: Aerial with subject property identified (Google Maps 2018)
Image 2: Aeiral with subject property identified
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment c: mAps And AeriAls
chAttel, inc. | historic preservAtion consultAnts
Image 3: 1954 aerial photograph with subject property identified (UCLA Dept of
Geography, Benjamin and Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives)
Image 4: 1954 detail of subject property (UCLA Dept of Geography, Benjamin and
Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment c: mAps And AeriAls
chAttel, inc. | historic preservAtion consultAnts
Image 5: Sanborn Fire Insurance Mpa 1918-1950, Sheet 13 with subject proprety
identified (Los Angeles Public Library)
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment c: mAps And AeriAls
chAttel, inc. | historic preservAtion consultAnts
Image 6: Close-up of Sanborn Fire Insurance Mpa 1918-1950, Sheet 13 with
subject proprety identified (Los Angeles Public Library)
Image 7: Los Angeles County Assessor Map, subject propety includes Lots M, N,
O, and P
AttAchment D: OriginAl BuilDing Permit
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, ca
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment D: OriginAl BuilDing Permit
chAttel, inc. | histOric PreservAtiOn cOnsultAnts
Image 1: Original building permit, 1925, page 1 of 2
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
AttAchment D: OriginAl BuilDing Permit
chAttel, inc. | histOric PreservAtiOn cOnsultAnts
Image 2: Original building permit, page 2 of 2
AttAchment e: DrAwings
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monica, ca
architectural review Board application and drawingS
111 sAntA monicA BoulevArD
stout Burgers AnD Beers
2012
10-9-12
X
X
Alan Guillen
11/09/12
12CBP0340
11/09/12
12CBP0340
05/04/12
12CBP0340
11/09/12
12CBP0340
11/09/12
12CBP0340
(N) GREASE TRAP,
SEE PLUMBING
PAGES, P4 FOR SPECS
29
29
27
11/09/12
12CBP0340
11/09/12
12CBP0340
4
SEE 2 HOUR RESI
STANT NOTES AND DETAIL #4
ON SHEET A2.0
11/09/12
12CBP0340