SR 07-23-2019 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2019
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Appeal 19ENT-0260, and appeal of the disapproval of Historic District
18ENT-0166, an application for a proposed Historic District on 4th Street
consisting of certain properties located within the 2500 block of 4th Street
including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524, 2525, and 2528 4th Street, and 317 -321
Ocean Park Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Appeal 19ENT-0260 and disapprove
designation of the proposed 4th Street Corner Historic District based on the findings
provided in this staff report.
Executive Summary
On November 20, 2018, the Santa Monica Conservancy submitted an application to
designate 15 buildings located on five parcels within the 2500 block of 4th Street as an
Historic District (Attachment A). The proposed Historic District, or “District”, consists of a
generally contiguous grouping of properties situated on the corner of 4 th Street and
Ocean Park Boulevard, and would comprise five (5) parcels consisting of 14 buildings
and 1 accessory structure dating from the area’s period of significance (1904-1936).
The application states that the subject buildings within the proposed District are
considerably intact and possess sufficient integrity to individually convey their historic
character, and that the proposed 4th Street Corner Historic District would have a
composition of 100% of its properties contributing to the District’s significance.
An Historic District Assessment was prepared by Historic Resources Group (HRG).
Utilizing the consultant’s report, staff evaluated the application according to the Historic
District criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance, including defining the
characteristics of an historic district, evaluation of historic integrity and historic context,
2 of 26
and understanding the persons of significance criteria. Staff concluded the proposed
district ineligible as an Historic District under the Ordinance. As described in this report,
the proposed grouping of properties do fall short of the criteria set forth in Santa Monica
Municipal Code (“SMMC”) section 9.56.100(A) and (B), in part, because it reflects only a
small aspect of the neighborhood’s modest residential development and association
from the early twentieth century, and does not appear to significantly convey the history
of the neighborhood.
On May 13, and June 10, 2019, the Landmarks Commission held public hearings to
discuss a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Historic District. At its
June 10, 2019 meeting, in consideration of all testimony, reports, and materials
introduced into the public record, the Commission failed to take action on a
recommendation to the City Council after two failed votes of 3 -3 each, with one
Commissioner absent. Because the Commission was unable to take action on the
application by providing a recommendation to City Council within the required
timeframes established in the Ordinance, the application was deemed disapproved.
The Landmarks Commission meeting staff reports are provided as Attachment D, with
meeting minutes provided as Attachment E.
On July 8, 2019, Santa Monica Conservancy, the applicant and appellant, filed a timely
appeal of the deemed disapproval. The appeal statement includes a rebuttal to the
analysis recommending denial of the application to designate the District as discussed
during the Commission’s review of the application. The appellant’s statement is further
discussed in this report. The complete appeal statement is provided as Attac hment B.
Staff has reviewed the appeal statement, public comments and testimony provided
during the Landmarks Commission hearings, and considered the Landmarks
Commission discussions. In reviewing all information, staff continues to recommend
denial of the Historic District application. Staff concludes that the properties under
review do not appear to meet the criteria for designation because the proposed
grouping does not appear to be a distinct, unified concentration of resources that
uniquely or significantly conveys the early residential development patterns of Ocean
3 of 26
Park that occurred during the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Because the criteria established in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation of Historic
Districts are designed to evaluate if an area conveys the City’s cultural, social,
economic, political, and architectural history, it is possible to properly apply the criteria
based on evidence in the record, with equally valid viewpoints that arrive at different
conclusions. This report seeks to provide reasonable perspectives on the proposed
historic District; a summary and explanation of both perspectives presented by the
Landmarks Commission, and staff’s analysis and recommendation. In addition to staff’s
analysis, the City Council should consider the Commission’s discussion when
determining whether appropriate findings can be made to support or deny the
application for an Historic District.
Discussion
City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance
The purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District Ordinance is:
[T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such
procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to:
A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s
cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.
B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied
and reflected in such improvements and areas.
C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.
4 of 26
D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents,
tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to
business and industry.
E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for
the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City.
SMMC 9.56.020.
Adopted in 1976, the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance established
procedures to achieve the City’s historic preservation goals, as the program promotes
the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts for the education,
pleasure, and welfare of City residents and visitors. Currently, there are 132 designated
City Landmarks, 13 designated Structures of Merit, and 4 Historic Districts within the
City. A Historic District is a geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of thematically
related properties which the City Council has designated and determined to be
appropriate for historical preservation in accordance with the provisions of the
Landmarks Ordinance. Designation of properties as an Historic District is one of the
options available in the preservation program to allow the City to protect and enhance
improvements that are found to be historically significant.
Upon appeal, the City Council reviews the disapproval of an application for designation
of an Historic District, as well as any related decisions de novo. SMMC 9.56.180(B).
The Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations,
decisions, judgments or similar actions taken which were in the purview of the
Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior
determinations and decisions of the Commission.
Criteria for Designation of a Historic District
The Ordinance sets forth eight Historic District Designation Criteria to guide the
Landmarks Commission in making a recommendation and the City Council in
designating an Historic District:
5 of 26
▪ 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. (SMMC 9.56.100(B)(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. (SMMC
9.56.100(B)(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. (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(6) and (B)(4).)
▪ It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City. (SMMC
9.56.100(A)(1).)
▪ It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value. (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(2).)
▪ It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state or national history. (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(3).)
▪ 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.
(SMMC 9.56.100(A)(4).)
▪ It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer or architect. (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(5).)
6 of 26
Proposed 4th Street Corner Historic District Application
Proposed District Boundaries/Study Area
As shown on Figure 1 below, the proposed Historic District consists of certain properties
located within the 2500 block of 4th Street including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524, 2525, and
2528 4th Street, and 317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard. The proposed District consists of a
collection of early 20th century residential buildings in the Ocean Park neighborhood,
including 13 buildings and 2 accessory structures constructed between 1906 and 1936.
The application includes a narrative on the history of the Ocean Park neighborhood and
architectural significance of the subject properties located within the proposed District
“study area”. Properties within the proposed District boundaries represent several
architectural styles from the early 20th century. These styles include
Neoclassical/Hipped-Roof cottages, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival,
Mediterranean Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles.
Figure 1 - Proposed District Study Area/Boundaries
The proposed District “study area” or boundaries consist of the following 5 parcels:
7 of 26
1. 2506-2516 4th Street (Neoclassical, Craftsman, American Colonial Revival)
2. 2518 4th Street (Spanish Colonial Revival)
3. 2524 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
4. 2525 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
5. 2528 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival), which includes the following residences:
- 317 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
- 319 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
- 321 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
Both the applicant’s report and the Historic District Assessment prepared by Historic
Resources Group provides an historic context of the Ocean Park neighborhood and
architectural descriptions of each property within the study boundaries. The HRG report
further includes analysis consisting of the history of previous owners/occupants, building
alterations, and an assessment of the overall integrity of each property.
Previous Surveys and Evaluations
The 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s
ongoing historic resource survey efforts, and further detailed on page 11 of the HRG
report. Most of the properties included in the proposed District have been previously
identified as contributors to several different versions of potential histo ric districts
including the Ocean Park Bungalow Courts Historic District, the 2500 Block 3 rd Street
District, and the 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District.
The 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District, documented in the 1985 Phase Three Santa
Monica Historic Resources Survey, was identified as a potential historic district as “a
diverse grouping of buildings spanning the first third of the twentieth century.” The 2004
Historic Resources Survey Update of Ocean Park combined the 2500 Block of 3 rd Street
District with the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District into a single potential district
representing early 20th century residential development in the area.
Upon completion of the 2018 citywide survey update, the potential 2400-2500 Block 4th
8 of 26
Street District was removed from the City’s Historic Resources Inventory due to
inconsistency with current State and Federal survey guidelines related to historic
districts. As with this potential District, multiple potential Historic Districts consisting of
smaller groupings, commonly referred to as “clusters”, were removed from the Historic
Resources Inventory particularly because of their diminutive size and inability to convey
sufficient information about patterns of history and development. The contributing
properties within the previously identified potential District were instead evaluated as
potential individual resources based on either its architecture, property type, or
conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood. As a result, the
following properties were identified as appearing individually eligible for local listing or
designation through survey evaluation (5S3):
- 2506-2516 4th Street: 2018 HRI: This condominium complex is identified as
individually eligible architecturally as a rare bungalow court.
- 2518 4th Street: 2018 HRI: This triplex was designated as a Structure of Merit in
2017 based on its architecture and property type.
- 2524 4th Street: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible based on its
property type and conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park
neighborhood.
- 2525 4th Street: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible based on
conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood.
- 317 Ocean Park Boulevard: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible
based on conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood.
The following properties are not included in the 2018 HRI:
- 2528 4th Street
- 319 Ocean Park Boulevard
9 of 26
- 321 Ocean Park Boulevard
As mentioned in the HRG report (footnote 14), 2528 4th Street, a former district
contributor in the 2010 HRI Update, was not evaluated in the 2018 HRI update due to a
clerical error. Residences located at 319 and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard which were
previously not on the 2010 HRI, were not evaluated in the 2018 HRI Update since these
properties were not previously listed.
Historic District Review and Designation Procedures
SMMC Section 9.56.130 of the Landmarks Ordinance mandates a review procedure
with established timeframes for completion as provided in Attachment G. In summary,
the Ordinance requires staff to conduct a public information/community meeting within
60 days of application submittal and the Landmarks Commission conduct a public
hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the application within 180
days. The Landmarks Commission has 45 days from the initial public hearing date to
act on a recommendation to the City Council. Within 45 days of recommendation by the
Landmarks Commission, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing and determine
whether to, by ordinance, approve, in whole or in part, the application for designation of
the Historic District.
Public Information/Community Meeting Summary
As mandated by the Landmarks Ordinance, staff conducted a community meeting on
Thursday, January 17, 2019 at the Santa Monica Institute (SMI). Approximately 20
members of the public were in attendance. The City’s historic consultant (HRG) and
staff provided an overview of the proposed 4th Street Historic District, the Historic
District review procedures, how the designation would affect properties, and
preservation incentives for contributing properties in a Historic District. Comments
provided were generally in support of the proposed historic district.
Landmarks Commission Discussion
The Landmarks Commission held two public hearings to discuss the proposed Historic
District on May 13, 2019 and June 10, 2019. In consideration of all testimony, reports,
10 of 26
and materials introduced into the public record, two motions were made both in support
of and against the formation of a District, both resulting in a 3-3 vote, with one
Commissioner absent. The Landmarks Commission’s Rules of Order require four votes
for any substantive motion; thus the Commission failed to take action at its June 10
meeting. The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to take action on an
application for an Historic District within 45 days of the date of the initial public hearing.
Based on the initial hearing date of May 13, 2019, the Commission was required to take
action by June 27, 2019. Because the Commission was unable to take action on the
application by providing a recommendation to City Council within the required
timeframes established by the Ordinance, the application was deemed disapproved as
of June 27, 2019. The Landmarks Commission meeting staff reports are provided as
Attachment D, with approved meeting minutes provided as Attachment E. The audio
recording of the May 13, 2019 and June 10, 2019 meetings are posted on the City’s
webpage: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Boards-Commissions/Landmarks-
Commission/
All seven Landmarks Commissioners were present for the May 13th discussion.
Members of the public in support of the District discussed the importance of recognizing
smaller groups or “clusters” as historic districts and how the subject properties represent
the architecture and development of the Ocean Park neighborhood. A representative of
the property owner of four of the five subject properties expressed some concerns with
the district approach and believed individual designation would be more appropriate.
The Commission held a discussion on the integrity of the residences and of the overall
setting, and characteristics of having a cohesive concentration of properties. A
Commissioner noted concerns that the consultant appeared to rely heavily on the NPS
guidelines related to “clusters”. In efforts to allow the applicant to develop criteria
findings in support of a designation, the Commission continued the item for further
discussion.
Six Landmarks Commissioners were present for the June 10th discussion. In its
deliberations, Commissioners in support of recommending that the City Council
designate the proposed District commented that there is a sufficient concentration of
11 of 26
properties that represent the architectural styles during its period of significance (1904 -
1936) which possess sufficient architectural integrity that continues to convey the
history of the area. It was noted that many of the subject properties are identified on the
current Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as potentially significant on an individual
basis. Commissioners reviewed the applicant’s proposed criteria findings and provided
recommendations on possible findings for in favor district approval. It was commented
that there are no size requirements in the Ordinance criteria and that the district is
composed of a diverse group of buildings, architecturally representing early
development and evolution of the Ocean Park neighborhood between 1904 and 1936.
Commissioners commented that each property is a contributor and noted its visibility
from the 4th Street /Ocean Park Boulevard overpass. Although Commissioners in
support of the district did not prepare formal written findings, findings were verbally
referenced and stated in a motion to support the district under criterion 9.56.100(A)(1),
9.56.100(A)(4), 9.56.100(A)(6), 9.56.100(B)(2), 9.56.100(B)(3), and 9.56.100(B)(4). A
summary of these findings are provided as Attachment F.
Commissioners not in support of recommending that the City Council designate the
proposed District agreed with the staff recommendation and expressed concerns
regarding the lack of cohesiveness of the grouping in that the proposed District does not
appear to consist of a sufficient concentration of properties. Comments included there
appears to be a lack in a definable area and that the properties and their architectural
styles do not appear as a unified grouping that would rise to the level of significance as
an Historic District under the City’s criteria. It was noted that an extant grouping of
intact surviving buildings do not necessarily represent a District. The motion against the
formation of the district were based on the staff recom mended findings provided in this
report.
Appeal
The appellant filed a timely appeal on July 8, 2019, within ten days of the application
being deemed disapproved on June 27, 2019. Pursuant to SMMC Section
9.56.180(A)(6) (Appeals), the disapproval of a Historic District application that occurs as
a result of the expiration of the required time period for processing may be appealed to
12 of 26
the City Council. The City Council, in its de novo review of this appeal, shall determine
whether the subject district is eligible for designation based on the Historic District
designation criteria identified in SMMC Section 9.56.100 of the Landmarks Ordinance.
The complete appeal statement is provided as Attachment B.
Analysis
The proposed District consists of a contiguous grouping of five (5) parcels situated on
the corner of 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. The parcels are improved with 14
residential buildings and 1 accessory structure that are considerably intact dating from
the area’s period of significance (1904-1936). The proposed District has considerable
visibility from the intersection. With the exception of the American Colonial Revival style
residence located at 2508 4th Street, the subject buildings within the proposed District
are considerably intact and retain enough integrity to individually convey their historic
character. The proposed District would have a composition of 100% of the properties
contributing to the district’s significance. The following table provides a summary of the
subject properties and 14 buildings (excluding the 1 accessory structure).
Address Description District Status Year Built
1 2506 4th Street
2508 4th Street
2510 4th Street
2512 4th Street
2514 4th Street
2516 4th Street
Multi-Unit Residential
Condominiums
Contributors 1906
1925
1925
1925
1921
1921
2 2518 4th Street Front Triplex Residential
Rear Duplex Above Garage
Contributor, Structure
of Merit (2017)
1936
1936
3 2524 4th Street Multi-Unit Residential Contributor 1917
4 2525 4th Street Single-Unit Residence Contributor 1923
5 2528 4th Street
321 Ocean Park Bl.
319 Ocean Park Bl.
317 Ocean Park Bl.
Single-Unit Residences
Contributors 1920
1920
1920
1920
13 of 26
Summary of Historic Context
Ocean Park Neighborhood
The Ocean Park neighborhood was originally subdivided in several phases beginning in
1875. Originally part of the Rancho La Ballona, 861 acres of land owned by the
Machado family were purchased by Nancy A Lucas in 1874 and would soon be
subdivided thereafter. Ocean Park developed southeast from the South Santa Monica
tract. Development occurred in two periods: prior to the real estate crash of 1890, and
during a renewed time of development between 1903 and 1906.
Tourist attractions were constructed in Ocean Park beginning in the late 19th century.
The modern history of Ocean Park is closely related to its development as a seaside
recreation destination. Much of the housing during this initial period of development was
deliberately temporary in nature. Residential tracts, subdivided beginning in the mid -
1880s, were typically clustered on streets nearest the ocean. The 4th Street hill served
as the inland boundary. In the early 20th century, Main Street became the community’s
primary commercial corridor. Residential cottages, bungalows, and bungalow courts
were constructed as far east as Lincoln Boulevard that provided permanent housing for
residents.
The proliferation of investment and individual developers in Ocean Park, where sub-
dividers could determine the street patterns, resulted in an irregular street pa ttern for the
town. Subsequent planning efforts to create more unity resulted in the renaming of
many of the area’s streets. Central Avenue, also known as Dwight Avenue (present -day
Ocean Park Boulevard) was one of these streets. Central Avenue initially terminated at
4th Street. Beginning in 1918, the street was extended, removing or subdividing several
parcels in its path, including 2532 4th Street and 2534 3rd Street.
By the 1950s, property values in Ocean Park had declined and the City studied potenti al
urban renewal schemes. In 1958, the City’s Redevelopment Agency established a 33 -
acre redevelopment area in Ocean Park, bounded by Ocean Park Boulevard to the
north, Neilson Way to the east, the City limit boundary to the south, and the beach
14 of 26
parking lots to the west. The district contained over 1,000 buildings spanning
approximately seven city blocks including many beach cottages, boarding houses, and
apartments. By 1966, all the buildings had been demolished to make way for new
development.
In the late 1960s, Ocean Park Boulevard was widened and regraded improving the
overall accessibility to the beach. Parcels along the south side of the street were
removed or subdivided to accommodate the widening project. Completed in 1969, the
4th Street bridge was constructed to allow 4th Street to continue across Ocean Park
Boulevard, with access to the newly-sunken Ocean Park Boulevard at the north and
south sides. Between 1967 and 1972, 4th Street was widened utilizing portions of
parcels along the east and west sides of the street. In the 1980s, a landscaped median
was added to the center of the street.
Present-day Ocean Park is characterized by a mix of residential building types including
single and multi-unit development with corridors of low-rise commercial development.
Development has occurred over time, resulting in a widely varied mixture of
architectural styles, building types, and uses throughout the neighborhood. However,
the overall character of the neighborhood results from its early development as a beach
resort. The neighborhood maintains the modest character associated with the
temporary vacation homes constructed to accommodate beach visitors, and the modest
residences constructed by for the permanent working-class residents in the area. In
recent decades, infill development has intensified throughout Ocean Park, changing
formerly cohesive neighborhoods of into small clusters of the modest residences of
early 20th century development, separated by larger multi-unit residences of greater
densities.
Neighborhood Context: 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street
The 2400-2500 block of 4th Street neighborhood contains single-unit residences and
multi-unit apartments and condominium buildings. Buildings in the immediate area
consist of one- and two- story residential buildings. A majority of the initial development
15 of 26
in the block was comprised primarily of single-unit residences constructed between
1910-1915 during the Craftsman period. Development of the block continued into the
early 1920s resulting in several revival-styled buildings, and through the 1930s including
Colonial, Spanish Colonial, and Tudor Revival styles. Redevelopment of the immediate
area began in the 1950s and 1960s resulting in two -story multi-unit apartments
changing the overall scale of the block.
Period of Significance
Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time,
referred to as the “period of significance.” The period of significance of the proposed 4 th
Street historic district is identified as 1904-1936, which spans the original period of
construction of all contributing properties within the proposed Study Area. All five (5) of
the properties within the study area would be considered contributors to the proposed
district since they were constructed within this period of significance, and because each
property is generally intact and continues to convey their historic significance on an
individual basis.
Associated Builders, Contractors, and Residents
The subject buildings within the proposed study area were not designed or constructed
by a common or notable architect or builder. Based on available building permits, no
significant architects or builders are associated with the potential historic district.
The subject Ocean Park neighborhood was primarily composed of working-class
households during its early development. Based on research of former residents of
properties within the proposed study area, no documentation was found to suggest that
any made significant contributions to local, state , or national history. No evidence was
found to suggest that an important event occurred within the district boundaries.
Historic Resources Group (HRG) prepared an Historic District assessment of a potential
4th Street historic district and analyzed the proposed district boundaries based on the
designation criterion established by the Landmarks Ordinance (Attachment C). The
assessment concludes that the proposed historic district does not appear to satisfy the
criterion for designation, as further outlined in this report. In evaluating whether the
proposed District meets one or more of the criteria for an Historic District under the
Landmarks Ordinance, HRG’s assessment utilized the National Park Service (NPS)
16 of 26
guidelines and industry best practices for guidance. Staff’s review of the proposal
included examining the proposed historic district based on its development history and
whether the subject grouping of properties contribute to each other as a unified
concentration as required by the Landmarks Ordinance, while also considering the NPS
guidelines.
Evaluation Approach
The proposed Historic District was evaluated according to the Historic District
Designation Criteria set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and (B), including defining the
characteristics of an historic district, evaluation of historic integrity and historic context,
and understanding the persons of significance criteria. In evaluating whether the
proposed district meets the criterion, HRG’s assessment utilized the National Park
Service (NPS) guidelines and industry best practices for guidance. The degree to which
these guidelines are relied upon to evaluate a district’s eligibility is not mandated by the
Ordinance, and criterion findings can be made that differ from these guidelines. Staff’s
review of the proposal included examining the proposed historic district based on its
development history and whether the subject grouping of properties contribute to each
other as a unified concentration sufficient, while also considering the NPS guidelines.
Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties from similar time
periods and historic contexts as historic districts. While local law does not require
compliance with National Park Service (NPS) guidelines, the City, like many other
jurisdictions, refer to NPS guidelines as persuasive guidance in applying local law’s
designation criteria. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration,
linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historicall y or
aesthetically by plan or physical development.” Resources that contribute to the historic
identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the
district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non-
contributors.” A district can be comprised of both contributors and non -contributors,
however the majority of the properties that exemplify the district’s historic character
must possess integrity. Within the context of historic prese rvation, integrity is defined as
the property’s ability to convey its significance as described more fully on page 44 in
Attachment H. According to NPS guidelines, a property of a district cannot contribute to
17 of 26
the significance if it has been substantially altered since the period of the proposed
district’s significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new
intrusions that it no longer conveys its overall sense of historic time and place.
Appeal Analysis
The appeal includes a rebuttal to the analysis recommending District denial discussed
during the Commission’s review of the application. The appeal is based on the following
points as summarized below:
1. The appellant does not agree with Staff and the City’s historic preservation
consultant’s analysis that the proposed district as a “cluster”, is not of sufficient
size to qualify as a Historic District, and that district size is not a requirement
established in the Landmark designation criteria.
The appellant is correct in that district size is not a requirement established in the
Landmark designation criteria. However, as stated in the 2018 citywide historic
resources inventory update report, “clusters” or small groupings of resources typically
do not convey sufficient information about patterns of history and development. The
appellant does not agree with staff and HRG’s analysis that the proposed district as a
“cluster” is not of sufficient size to qualify as a Historic District. The size of the grouping
helps to inform, among other factors, whether the subject properties visually and
physically conveys its sense of time, place, historical development, and possess
integrity and significance as a whole. Characteristics other than size may include
consistency in architectural style or overall scale, uniform streetscape elements, or
location/site configuration that may differentiate itself from other blocks or properties in
the area.
The consultant’s Assessment determined that as currently developed with a variety of
architectural styles and building types from various periods, the small collection of
residential improvements defined in the proposed district boundary does not appear to
be a distinct, unified concentration of resources. The buildings generally have minimal
application of architectural ornamentation, which is common throughout the Ocean Park
18 of 26
neighborhood, a result of the area’s early development as a beachside resort town and
working-class neighborhood. In recent decades, infill development has intensified
throughout Ocean Park, resulting in numerous small clusters of early 20th century
residences scattered throughout the neighborhood, interspersed with higher density
multi-family residential development. Further, although the subject properties were
constructed during a similar time period and may individually convey the development
history of the neighborhood, the proposed district as a whole does not clearly possess a
definable area.
2. The appellant states there is a precedent for the formation of small historic
districts in the City, stating that two of the four historic districts including the Bay
Street Craftsman Cluster Historic District (2000) and the 11th Street Bungalow
Historic District (2019) are smaller than the proposed district. The appellant
states that smaller groupings of properties in the City are typical because of the
significant infill that occurred in the 1960’s and in recent decades.
Although the Bay Street Craftsman Cluster Historic District and the 11th Street
Bungalow Historic District are of similar size to the proposed District, each vary in their
physical characteristics and how they represent either the City’s cultural, social,
economic, architectural or development history. The Bay Street Craftsman Cluster
Historic District are strongly unified architecturally, while the 11th Street Bungalow
Historic District included historic personages and a notable builder that further
represented the grouping of low scale working class housing that shaped the Mid City
neighborhood.
Contextually, the proposed grouping of properties do not appear physically defined or
uniquely situated in a manner that would differentiate the group from adjacent
residential properties located on the block or other small groupings of early 20th century
residences from this period throughout Ocean Park, such as existing groupings along
3rd Street, 6th Street, or Highland Avenue. The grouping of properties do not appear
strongly unified aesthetically through its architectural style and scale to contribute to
each other cohesively as a district. In addition, because of its small size and lack of
19 of 26
these physical, unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping of these residences as a
whole does not appear to uniquely or significantly convey the historic development
pattern within the Ocean Park area. It reflects a very small aspect of the neighborhood’s
modest residential development and association with the working-class from the first
quarter of the twentieth century, and because of its diminutive size, does not fully
demonstrate the architectural or development history of the Ocean Park neighborhood.
3. The appellant states that their (SM Conservancy) description of why the specific
properties identified as the proposed district uniquely represent a specific period
in the development of the Ocean Park neighborhood was not given sufficient
consideration. The appellant states that the extension of Central Avenue
(renamed Ocean Park Blvd) resulted in a period of rapid residential development
between 1917 and 1925 in this specific area identified as the Corner District.
While the extension of Ocean Park Boulevard led to the growth of residential
development of the immediate area between 1917 and 1925, it is unclear how this
particular grouping of properties uniquely conveys this development history differently
from other clusters of early 20th century housing in the area, other than its proximity to
the altered street. Based on this history, it would appear that the expansion of Central
Avenue/Ocean Park Blvd would better reflect the residential development of Ocean
Park compared to the proposed grouping of these particular properties.
4. The appellant disagrees with the City’s historic preservation consultant’s
assessment that the impact of streetscape changes in the 1960s is stated as
disqualifying this group of structures for historic designation, and states that the
streetscape alterations had no impact on the architectural integrity of the
individual structures in the district nor on the integrity or cohesion of the district
as a whole. The appellant further states that despite these alterations, this cluster
of properties remains intact and uninterrupted by non-contributing buildings, and
continues to represent the early residential character of Ocean Park.
Staff agrees with the appellant in that these streetscape alterations did not result in
20 of 26
significant impacts on the architectural integrity of the individual structures within the
proposed district. The subject buildings within the proposed district are considerably
intact and retain enough integrity to individually convey their historic character. Although
the subject buildings have maintained their architectural integrity, as a whole, the
grouping does not appear to possess historical integrity in its setting.
Road modernization projects such as the re-grading of Ocean Park Boulevard in the
late 1960s and the associated construction of the 4 th Street overpass, and widening of
4th Street have altered the residential character of the immediate area. Based on the
altered streetscape, the neighborhood setting has changed from its early development
and does not appear to possess historical integrity in its setting.
Evaluation of Historic District Designation Criteria
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the City Council to review the proposed District’s
eligibility based on the criteria discussed below. Staff recommends that Council discuss
whether the proposed district satisfies the Ordinance criterion based on the information
provided. Based on the analysis above, the proposed 4th Street Historic District appears
ineligible as an Historic District because it does not meet one or more of the criteria for
designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B). Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the proposed appeal and denial of the application to designate
the proposed Historic District on 4th Street, based on the following findings:
9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The proposed District does not appear to exemplify or symbolize elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. It
represents a small collection of early 20th century residential development in the
Ocean Park neighborhood. Constructed in two of the earliest subdivisions in
Ocean Park, development in the proposed District began at the end of a renewed
building boom in the neighborhood, and continued throughout the early 20 th
century. Buildings within the proposed District were constructed over a period of
21 of 26
32 years and reflect a variety of architectural styles. The buildings generally have
minimal application of architectural ornamentation, which is common throughout
the Ocean Park neighborhood, a result of the area’s early development as a
beachside resort town and working-class neighborhood. In recent decades, infill
development has intensified throughout Ocean Park, resulting in numerous small
clusters of early 20th century residences scattered throughout the neighborhood,
interspersed with higher density multi-family residential development. Because of
its small size and lack of physical, unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping
of these residences as a whole do not appear to uniquely or significant ly convey
the historic development pattern within the Ocean Park area. It reflects a very
small aspect of the neighborhood’s modest residential development and
association with the working-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century,
and because of its diminutive size, does not fully demonstrate the architectural or
development history of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed
district does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest
or value.
The proposed District consists of properties reflecting various architectural styles
and property types. The subject buildings are typical examples of their
architectural styles and lack stylistic articulation and design qualities. The subject
properties do not represent a cohesive architectural style and do not possess
aesthetic or artistic value. Therefore the proposed District does not appear to
satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state, or national history.
Based on research of former residents of properties within the proposed District,
no documentation was found to suggest that any made significant contributions
to local, state, or national history. No evidence was found to suggest that an
22 of 26
important event occurred within the boundaries of the proposed District.
Therefore, the proposed district is not associated with historic personages or with
important events in local, state, or national history, and therefore does not appear
to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type valuable to such a study.
The proposed District consists of residences that are relatively simple in design
and modest examples of their respective architectural styles. The residences are
typical examples of the period and do not embody distinguishing architectural
characteristics valuable to a study. Based on extent examples of
Neoclassical/Hipped-Roof cottages, Craftsman bungalows, Spanish Colonial
Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles throughout
the City the subject buildings are not unique or rare examples of its architectural
design or historical type. Therefore, the proposed District does not appear to
satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
The subject buildings within the proposed District were not designed by the same
architect or constructed by the same builder. Based on available building permits,
no significant architects or builders are associated with the potential historic
district. Therefore, the subject properties within the proposed district are not
significant or representative examples of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(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.
23 of 26
Contextually, properties within the proposed District vary in architectural styles
and building types, and are not physically defined or considerably differentiated
from adjacent residential properties located on the block. The proposed District is
not located within a unique location or share a singular physical characteristic,
and is not a familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed
District does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
Historic District Criteria
9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6).
The proposed District does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for
designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B), as descr ibed
above. Therefore, the proposed District does not satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The proposed District is composed of a small grouping of five parcels, developed
with residences of varying architectural styles that as a group, are not distinctly
different from other small groupings of residences from the early 20 th century that
exist throughout the Ocean Park neighborhood. Contextually, the proposed
grouping of properties do not appear as a physically definable area possessing a
cohesive or unified concentration of properties. The grouping of properties do not
appear strongly unified aesthetically through its architectural style and scale to
contribute to each other cohesively as a district. In addition, because of its small
size and lack of physical, unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping of these
residences as a whole does not appear to significantly convey the historic
development pattern of the Ocean Park area that occurred during the first quarter
of the twentieth century. It reflects a very small aspect of the neighborhood’s
24 of 26
modest residential development and association with the working-class from the
first quarter of the twentieth century, and because of its diminutive size, does not
fully demonstrate the architectural or development history of the Ocean Park
neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed District does not appear to satisfy this
criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The proposed District is comprised with improvements of varying dates of
construction, architectural styles, and property types, and was developed in an ad
hoc manner between 1904 and 1936, and therefore is not a distinctive example of
community planning. Contextually, the proposed grouping of properties are not
physically defined or considerably differentiated from the adjacent residential
properties located on the block. Because of its small size and lack of unifying
characteristics, the proposed grouping of these residences as a whole does not
appear to significantly convey the historic development pattern of the Ocean Park
area that occurred during the first quarter of the twentieth century. It reflects a
very small aspect of the neighborhood’s modest residential development and
association with the working-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century,
and because of its diminutive size, does not fully demonstrate the architectural or
development history of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Furthermore, road
modernization projects such as the re-grading of Ocean Park Boulevard in the
late 1960s and the associated construction of the 4 th Street overpass, and
widening of 4th Street, have altered the residential character of the immediate
area such that this particular grouping as a whole in its current setting does not
appear to reflect its period of development. Therefore, the subject district does
not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
25 of 26
Since the proposed District does not appear to meet criterion 9.56.100(A)(6), it
does not satisfy this criterion.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may:
1) Discuss alternate findings in support of designating the proposed historic district
application, if Council determines designation is supported by the full evidentiary
record, with staff direction to return to the City Council on August 13, 2019 with
findings and an Ordinance adopting the 4th Street Corner Historic District.
Should the Council choose to deny the proposed Historic District application, it should
be noted that the process for review of properties on an individual basis for potential
designation is available. Any future consideration of properties on an individual basis
would be subject to different findings and analysis and done separately and apart from
the pending 4th Street Historic District application under consideration in this staff report.
Public Correspondence
All public correspondence provided to the City during the Landmarks Commission
review and prior to the completion of this report is provided as Attachment I.
Environmental Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a
public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, C EQA would not be
applicable.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
26 of 26
Prepared By: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Applicant’s Materials: 4th Street Historic District Application (November 2018)
B. Appeal Statement
C. Historic District Assessment Report, Historic Resources Group (May 2019)
D. May 13 2019 & June 10 2019 Landmarks Commission Staff Reports
E. May 13 2019 & June 10 2019 Landmarks Commission Minutes
F. Summary of Findings by Commisioners in Support of District (June 10, 2019 LC
Meeting Discussion)
G. Historic District Procedures (SMMC 9.56.130)
H. NPS Guidelines
I. Public Correspondence
J. Written Comments
K. PowerPoint Presentation
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District, Santa Monica
May 7, 2019
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
PREPARED FOR
Planning & Community Development
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 Executive Summary
5 Introduction
6 Methodology
7 Regulatory Framework
12 Previous Evaluations/Designations
18 Historic Context
26 Physical Description
44 Evaluation of Eligibility
48 Conclusion
49 Bibliography
Appendix A: Building Permit Chronology
Appendix B: Photographs of Evaluated Resources
Appendix C: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Appendix D: Historic Aerial Photographs
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
4
Properties within the potential 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District. Facing
northwest, 2019.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We have evaluated the proposed “4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District,”
consisting of 5 legal parcels between 2506 and 2528 4th Street in the City of Santa Monica,
California, for potential eligibility for local designation under the City of Santa Monica’s
Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance.1 The district was nominated for local designation
by the Santa Monica Conservancy on November 20, 2018. Based on a review of previous survey
findings for the area, the relevant historic contexts, an analysis of the eligibility criteria and
integrity thresholds for local designation, and current methodology for evaluating historic districts,
this report concludes that the proposed 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic
District is not eligible for listing as a City of Santa Monica Historic District. The proposed district
does not meet current preservation practice for identifying potential historic districts, its setting
has been extensively altered, and it does not uniquely represent this period of Ocean Park’s
residential history, distinguishable from other small clusters from this period in the neighborhood.
Research included review of building permits; historic newspaper articles in the Los Angeles
Times; and the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1909, 1918, and 1950. A site visit was
conducted on April 1, 2019.
1 The district was nominated for local designation by the Santa Monica Conservancy under the name 4th Street & Ocean Park
Boulevard Corner Historic District; therefore, that name for the district is used in this report for consistency.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
5
INTRODUCTION
The proposed 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District consists of 13
buildings and 2 accessory structures on five parcels. The proposed district is located at the north
side of the intersection between Ocean Park Boulevard and 4th Street in the Ocean Park
neighborhood of Santa Monica. The buildings located within the district boundary were
constructed between 1906 and 1936.
Site map. The proposed district boundaries are indicated in red.
N
N
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
6
METHODOLOGY
The potential 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District was evaluated using
integrity thresholds and eligibility criteria for listing as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. The
field methods and analysis are based on guidance from the National Park Service, the California
Office of Historic Preservation, and the City of Santa Monica for evaluating potential historic
resources; and an identification of physical features and historic integrity ascertained during the
site visit and through building records.
This report was prepared using sources related to the history and development of the proposed
historic district. The following sources were consulted:
Building permits
Historic newspaper articles
Historic aerial photography
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps
Other primary and secondary sources relevant to the history of the site
Citywide historic resources survey findings and historic context statements
Research, field inspection, and analysis were performed by Christine Lazzaretto, Managing
Principal; and Molly Iker-Johnson, Associate Architectural Historian/Staff Photographer. Both
meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in History and
Architectural History.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
7
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Historic resources may be designated at the federal, state, and local levels. Current designations
available in Santa Monica include: National Historic Landmarks, National Register of Historic
Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Registered Historical Landmarks,
California Points of Historical Interest, and Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and
Historic Districts. While some programs place emphasis on architectural character, all use basic
criteria relating to a property’s place in important events or patterns of development, association
with important personages, and architectural significance. This evaluation of the potential 4th
Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District is for eligibility for designation as a City
of Santa Monica Historic District.
Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criteria
The Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance includes criteria and procedures
for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts.
Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property
that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City. Structures of
Merit are historic resources with a more limited degree of individual significance.
The Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure,
improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following
criteria, outlined in Section 9.56.100(A):
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national
history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period,
style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is
a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to
such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
8
A historic district is defined by the City of Santa Monica 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 preservation pursuant to the provisions of this
[ordinance].” To be designated as a historic district, an area must meet one of the following
criteria, outlined in Section 9.35.100(B):
1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(A)(1) through (6).
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 geographic 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.
Integrity
Standard practice, based on guidance from the National Park Service, determines whether a
property has retained “historic integrity.” Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey
its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by
the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s…historic period.”2
The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that comprise integrity: location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These qualities are defined as
follows:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event took place.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property.
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form
(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), 4.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
9
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period
of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.3
National Park Service Guidance
The National Park Service provides guidance for how to evaluate properties based on the reason
for potential significance. This guidance helps to inform the evaluation of properties at the
federal, state, and local levels.
Historic Districts
Standard preservation practice evaluates geographically contiguous collections of buildings from
similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts. A group of buildings that would
not be individually eligible may be eligible as a group. A district derives its importance from being
a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of
a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of
the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related
properties.
The National Park Service defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or
continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or
physical development.”4 Although often composed of a wide variety of resources, a district
derives importance from being a unified entity whose components may lack individual
distinction. Its resources share similar aesthetic and contextual qualities. A district must be “a
definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995).
4 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington
D.C.: National Park Service, 1995).
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
10
as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented
differences in patterns of historic development or associations.”5 Boundaries must be based upon
a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district. In addition, a district must be
significant, and the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character must
possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.6
Period of Significance
The National Park Service recognizes buildings, sites, objects and districts for their historic
significance, and requires that that significance be associated with a discrete chronological period:
the “period of significance.” A period of significance is the length of time during which a property
was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which
qualify it for national, state, or local designation. A period of significance usually begins with the
date when significant activities or events began at the property; this is often a date of
construction. A historic place may have multiple periods of significance, but those periods must
be strictly demarcated by year.7
Contributors and Non-Contributors
Buildings that fall within the period of significance for a district and retain sufficient integrity to
convey their significance, are called “contributing resources;” those that do not retain significant
integrity or fall outside the period of significance are “noncontributing resources.”
A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic associations, historic
architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a property is significant because:
it was present during the period of significance, relates to the documented significance
of the property, and possesses historic integrity or is capable of yielding important
information about the period; or
it independently meets the National Register criteria.
A noncontributing building, site, structure, or object does not add to the historic associations,
historic architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a property is significant because:
it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented
significance of the property; or
5 National Register Bulletin 15.
6 National Register Bulletin 15.
7 National Register Bulletin 16A, 42.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
11
due to alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes, it no longer possesses
historic integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period; or
it does not independently meet the National Register criteria.
Integrity
For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the components that make up the
district's historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In
addition, the relationships among the district's components must be substantially unchanged
since the period of significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new
intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment.
A component of a district cannot contribute to the significance if:
it has been substantially altered since the period of the district's significance; or
it does not share the historic associations of the district. 8
Properties Significant for an Association with Important People
Per National Park Service guidance, a property “is not eligible if its only justification for
significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable
profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance
within his or her profession or group.”9
Architecturally Significant Properties
The National Park Service guidance also includes considerations for properties that are eligible
as examples of a particular architectural style or type. According to the National Park Service, “a
property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design
that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express
aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.”10
8 National Register Bulletin 15.
9 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation.
10 National Register Bulletin 15.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12
PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS
As a result of several previous surveys of the area, most of the properties located within the
potential 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District have been previously
identified as contributors to several potential historic districts: the Ocean Park Bungalow Courts
Historic District, the 2500 Block 3rd Street District, and the 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District.
The Ocean Park Bungalow Courts District, documented in the 1983 Phase One Santa Monica
Historic Resources Survey, was identified as a potential historic district as “a cluster of fifteen
bungalows and apartment courts, notable for their proximity to each other and as a building
type.”11 The 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District, documented in the 1985 Phase Three Santa
Monica Historic Resources Survey, was identified as a potential historic district as “a diverse
grouping of buildings spanning the first third of the twentieth century.”12 The 2004 Historic
Resources Survey Update of Ocean Park combined the 2500 Block 3rd Street District with the
2400-2500 Block 4th Street District into a single potential district representing early 20th century
residential development in the area.13 That survey finding was carried forward in the 2010
Historic Resources Inventory Update.
The 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update found that the potential 2500 Block 3rd
Street/2400-2500 Block of 4th Street historic district is not eligible for designation at the national,
state, or local levels.14 In accordance with current state and federal guidelines for evaluating
historic districts, the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update utilized updated methodology
for identifying potential historic districts. Several of the districts identified in the 2010 HRI Update
were evaluated as “clusters,” which typically comprised five or fewer properties.15 Clusters,
because of their size, generally do not convey information about patterns of history and
development in a manner consistent with the registration requirements included in the 2018
11 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I & II, Final Report, prepared by Johnson Heumann Research
Associates, 1985-1986, 35. The Ocean Park Bungalow Courts District was a non-contiguous district of bungalow and apartment
courts in the Ocean Park neighborhood.
12 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III, Final Report, prepared by Leslie Heumann and Associates,
1994, 15. The 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District included all 5 parcels within the boundaries of the proposed 4th Street and
Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District.
13 City of Santa Monica, Historic Resources Survey Update: Ocean Park, Final Draft, prepared by Historic Resources Group, June
2004. The 2500 Block 3rd Street District, originally identified in the 1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey,
incorporates “turn-of-the-century, Craftsman, and revival styled housing, spanning the years 1895 to 1935.”
14 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
15 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural
Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
13
Historic Context Statement. This resource category is not recognized in federal, state, or local
guidelines for documenting historic resources; therefore, clusters were not identified as
potentially eligible in the 2018 HRI Update. As a result of this difference in methodology, fewer
district resources were identified as part of the 2018 HRI Update. However, buildings that were
previously classified as contributors to potential districts in the 2010 HRI Update were
reevaluated for potential individual significance in 2018. As a result, five of the properties within
the current district boundary were identified as individually eligible.16
Additional information on the previous evaluations for each property within the potential district
boundary is outlined below:
2506-2516 4th Street
The condominium complex at 2506-2516 4th Street has been surveyed numerous times since
the 1980s. It was assigned a status code of 5D, meaning “eligible for local listing as a contributor
[to the Ocean Park Bungalow Courts district],” in the 1983 Phase One Santa Monica Historic
Resources Survey.17 It was reevaluated in 2003 and given a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible
for local listing only – contributor to district listed or eligible under possible local ordinance.”18
The evaluation indicates that the property was located within the potential Ocean Park Bungalow
Courts historic district, as well as the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-2500 Block 4th St Historic
district. The property was reevaluated in 2010, and given a status code of 5B, meaning “locally
significant both individually and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated,
determined eligible, or appears eligible through survey evaluation.”19 The property was
reevaluated in 2018 and given a status code of 5S3, meaning “appears to be individually eligible
for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.” 20
16 The property at 2506-2516 4th Street was identified as a single resource. In 2010, the residence at 2528 4th Street was
reevaluated as a contributor to the 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District. The evaluation was completed under the address 317
Ocean Park Boulevard, but the description and photograph of the evaluated building match the building at 2528 4th Street. As a
result of this clerical error, when reevaluating contributors to the district for potential individual significance, the 2018 HRI Update
evaluated the residence at 317 Ocean Park Boulevard, and did not reevaluate the residence at 2528 4th Street. Additionally, the
residences at 319 Ocean Park Boulevard and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard, which had not been previously identified as individual
contributors to the 2400-2500 Block 4th Street District, were not evaluated during this study.
17 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I & II, Final Report, prepared by Johnson Heumann Research
Associates, 1985-1986.
18 “2506 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group, November 2003.
19 “2506 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010.
20 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
14
The property is listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) with a status code of
7N, meaning “submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation for action - withdrawn.”21 There
is no date listed for this evaluation.
2518 4th Street
The multi-family residence at 2518 4th Street was assigned a status code of 5D1, meaning
“eligible for local listing only – contributor to [the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street district],” in the
1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey.22 It was reevaluated in 2003, and
assigned a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible for local listing only – contributor to district
listed or eligible under possible local ordinance.”23 The evaluation indicates that the property was
located within the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-2500 Block 4th St Historic district. The
property was reevaluated in 2010, and given a status code of 5D3, meaning “appears to be a
contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation. “24 It was reevaluated in 2018, and given a status code of 5S3, meaning “appears to
be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.” 25
The triplex at the front of the parcel was designated a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit
in December 2017.26 It was determined eligible as an “intact example of Spanish Colonial Revival
architecture as applied to a triplex property type, a property type no longer prevalent in this
section of Ocean Park.” 27
The property is not listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).28
21 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
22 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III, Final Report, prepared by Leslie Heumann and Associates,
1994.
23 “2518 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group, November 2003.
24 “2518 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010.
25 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
26 Ostashay & Associates Consulting, “Structure of Merit Assessment Report: Triplex Apartment Building, 2518 4th Street, Santa
Monica, California,” December 2017. The designation occurred after fieldwork for the 2018 survey was completed, but before the
survey was officially adopted.
27 Ostashay & Associates Consulting, “Structure of Merit Assessment Report: Triplex Apartment Building, 2518 4th Street, Santa
Monica, California,” December 2017.
28 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
15
2524 4th Street
The multi-family residence at 2524 4th Street was assigned a status code of 5D1, meaning
“eligible for local listing only – contributor to [the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street district],” in the
1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey.29 It was reevaluated in 2003, and
given a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible for local listing only – contributor to district listed
or eligible under possible local ordinance.”30 The evaluation indicates that the property was
located within the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-2500 Block 4th St Historic district. The
property was reevaluated in 2010, and assigned a status code of 5D3, meaning “appears to be
a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation. “31 It was reevaluated in 2018, and given a status code of 5S3, meaning “appears to
be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”32
The property is not listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).33
2525 4th Street
The single-family residence at 2525 4th Street was assigned a status code of 5D1, meaning
“eligible for local listing only – contributor to [the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street district],” in the
1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey.34 2524 4th Street was reevaluated
in 2004, and assigned a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible for local listing only – contributor
to district listed or eligible under possible local ordinance.”35 The evaluation indicates that the
property was located within the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-2500 Block 4th St Historic
district. It was reevaluated in 2010, and given a status code of 5D3, meaning “appears to be a
contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey
29 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III, Final Report, prepared by Leslie Heumann and Associates,
1994.
30 “2524 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group, November 2003.
31 “2524 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010.
32 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
33 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
34 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I & II, Final Report, prepared by Johnson Heumann Research
Associates, 1985-1986.
35 “2525 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group, January 2004.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
16
evaluation.”36 The property was reevaluated in 2018, and assigned a status code of 5S3, meaning
“appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”37
The property is not listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).38
2528 4th Street/317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard
The parcel at 2528 4th Street is shared by 4 single-family residences (2528 4th Street, 317 Ocean
Park Boulevard, 319 Ocean Park Boulevard, and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard). Only the
residences at 2528 4th Street and 317 Ocean Park Boulevard have been previously identified in
historic resources surveys.
2528 4th Street
The single-family residence at 2528 4th Street was assigned a status code of 5D1, meaning
“eligible for local listing only – contributor to [the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street district],” in the
1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey.39 2528 4th Street was reevaluated
in 2004, and assigned a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible for local listing only – contributor
to district listed or eligible under possible local ordinance.”40 The evaluation indicates that the
property was located within the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-2500 Block 4th St Historic
district. It was reevaluated in 2010, and given a status code of 5D3, meaning “appears to be a
contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation. “41
The property is not listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).42
36 “2525 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010.
37 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
38 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
39 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III, Final Report, prepared by Leslie Heumann and Associates,
1994.
40 “2528 4th Street,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group, January 2004.
41 “317 Ocean Park Boulevard,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010. The evaluation
was completed under the address 317 Ocean Park Boulevard, but the description and photograph of the evaluated building match
the building at 2528 4th Street. As a result of this clerical error, the 2018 HRI Update evaluated the residence at 317 Ocean Park
Boulevard, and did not reevaluate the residence at 2528 4th Street.
42 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
17
317 Ocean Park Boulevard
The single-family residence at 317 Ocean Park Boulevard was assigned a status code of 5D1,
meaning “eligible for local listing only – contributor to [the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street
district],” in the 1985 Phase Three Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey.43 317 Ocean Park
Boulevard was reevaluated in 2004, and assigned a status code of 5D2, meaning “eligible for
local listing only – contributor to district listed or eligible under possible local ordinance.”44 The
evaluation indicates that the property was located within the potential 2500 Block 3rd St/2400-
2500 Block 4th St Historic district. The property was reevaluated in 2010, and assigned a status
code of 5D3, meaning “appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local
listing or designation through survey evaluation. “45 It was reevaluated in 2018, and assigned a
status code of 5S3, meaning “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation
through survey evaluation.”46
The property is not listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).47
43 City of Santa Monica, Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III, Final Report, prepared by Leslie Heumann and Associates,
1994.
44 “317 Ocean Park Boulevard,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Historic Resources Group,
November 2003.
45 “317 Ocean Park Boulevard,” Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010. The
evaluation was completed under the address 317 Ocean Park Boulevard, but the description and photograph of the
evaluated building matches 2528 4th Street.
46 City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Survey Report, prepared by Architectural
Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, August 2018.
47 California Historical Resources Inventory, August 15, 2011.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
18
HISTORIC CONTEXT48
Ocean Park
The land that would become Ocean Park was subdivided in several phases starting in 1875.
Originally part of Rancho La Ballona, 861 acres owned by the Machado family were purchased
by Nancy A. Lucas (c. 1805-1881) in 1874 and soon subdivided.49 Her land was located south
of present-day Pico Boulevard and fronted the Pacific Ocean.
Concurrent with the platting of the Santa Monica Township in 1875, Ivar A. Weid purchased
50 acres of what would become Ocean Park from Mrs. Lucas. Not long afterwards, Weid
subdivided twelve blocks bounded by Pico Boulevard on the north, Strand Street on the south,
the west side of 3rd Street on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west. Weid advertised parcels
in “South Santa Monica, Lots 60’ x150.’ Villa sites purchased by Judges Bicknell and Glassel,
Captain Thom, and others.”50 Each main block consisted of 18 parcels with no alleyways. A
portion of the remaining Lucas ranch was divided into twenty-acre blocks by one of Nancy
Lucas’s sons and sold to various parties during the early 1880s. Among the early settlers were
Walter H. Wrenn, Nathan Bundy, Thomas Carlise, and Joseph and John Bontty. Ocean Park
developed toward the southeast from the South Santa Monica tract. It occurred in two major
waves: first, prior to the real estate crash of 1890 and then a renewed boom between 1903 and
1906. The arrival of the first electric streetcar on April 1, 1896, and the later establishment of
the “Balloon Route” from downtown Los Angeles, spurred further investment in Santa Monica
real estate.
Ocean Park was initially oriented towards the beach, where a series of tourist attractions were
constructed starting in the late 19th century. Pleasure piers, amusement parks, bathhouses, tourist
accommodations, and recreational facilities have defined the built environment of this
community for more than a century, including the 1958 establishment of Pacific Ocean Park.
The modern history of Ocean Park, therefore, is closely tied to its development as a seaside
recreation destination. Much of the housing during this initial period of development was
deliberately temporary in nature. Residential tracts, subdivided beginning in the mid-l880s, were
typically clustered on streets nearest the ocean. The 4th Street hill served as the inland boundary.
In the early 20th century, Main Street became the community’s primary commercial corridor,
48 Information in this context was derived from City of Santa Monica, Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context
Statement, prepared by Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, June 2017.
49 Nancy A. Lucas was the first Caucasian landowner in the Ocean Park neighborhood. In 1875 Lucas constructed a residence
between Strand and Hill, 3rd and 4th Streets at a cost of $12,000. The property at present-day 237 Beach St. was originally a
farmhouse on her property. Ingersoll, Ingersoll’s Century History.
50 Luther A. Ingersoll, Ingersoll’s Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities (Los Angeles County: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908).
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
19
and cottages, bungalows, and bungalow courts were constructed as far east as Lincoln Boulevard
to house permanent residents and visitors.
The proliferation of investment and individual developers in Ocean Park, where sub-dividers
could determine the street patterns, resulted in an irregular street pattern for the town. Later
planning efforts to create more unity resulted in the renaming of many of the area’s streets.
Central Avenue, also known as Dwight Avenue (present-day Ocean Park Boulevard) was one
of these streets. Central Avenue initially terminated at 4th Street. Beginning in 1918, the street
was extended, removing or subdividing several parcels in its path, including 2532 4th Street and
2534 3rd Street.51
By the 1950s, property values in Ocean Park had declined, and City officials studied potential
urban renewal schemes. In 1958, the City Redevelopment Agency established a 33-acre
redevelopment area in Ocean Park, bounded by Ocean Park Boulevard on the north, Neilson
Way on the east, the Venice city limit on the south, and the State beach parking lots and beach
on the west.52 The district contained over 1,000 buildings spanning approximately seven city
blocks including many beach cottages, boarding houses, and apartments. By 1966, all the
buildings had been demolished to make way for new development.53 This resulted in the
relocation of 316 families, 502 individuals, and 212 businesses.54 In the process, Hart, Frazier,
and Wadsworth Avenues were partially eliminated – curtailing access for Ocean Park residents
and making the seaside more the domain of visitors arriving by automobile.
In the late 1960s, Ocean Park Boulevard was widened and regraded, creating a level approach
to the beach. Parcels along the south side of the street were removed or subdivided to
accommodate the widening project. A bridge, completed in 1969, was constructed to allow 4th
Street to continue across Ocean Park Boulevard, with access to the newly-sunken Ocean Park
Boulevard at the north and south sides. Between 1967 and 1972, 4th Street was widened,
utilizing portions of parcels along the east and west sides of the street.55 In the 1980s, a
landscaped median was added down the center of the street.56
51 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, 1909 and 1918.
52 “Ocean Park Redevelopment Project,” website: https://oceanpark.wordpress.com/top/ocean-park-redevelopment-project/
(accessed April 2019). The 33-acre site was divided into two redevelopment areas, Project Area 1A, adopted in 1960, and Project
Area 1B, adopted in 1961.
53 City of Santa Monica, Historic Resources Survey Update: Ocean Park, Final Draft, prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2004,
26.
54 Paula A. Scott, Santa Monica: A History on the Edge (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing Co., 2004), 130.
55 Approximate dates derived from historic aerial photography of the area. The historic district nomination notes that this widening
project was designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the new I-10 exit at Fourth Street and Olympic Boulevard, and
that the City paid property owners for 12 feet of their parcels. However, this information was not able to be substantiated.
56 Approximate dates derived from historic aerial photography of the area.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
20
Present-day Ocean Park is characterized by medium-density single- and multi-family residential
development, with corridors of low-rise commercial development. Development occurred over
time, resulting in a widely varied mixture of architectural styles, building types, and uses
throughout the neighborhood. However, the overall character of the neighborhood results from
its early development as a beach resort. It maintains the modest character associated with the
temporary vacation homes constructed to accommodate beach visitors, and the similarly
reserved homes constructed by the working-class residents that lived in Ocean Park year-round.
In recent decades, incompatible infill has intensified throughout Ocean Park, breaking formerly
cohesive neighborhoods of into small clusters of the modest single- and multi-family residences
characteristic of early 20th century development in Ocean Park, separated by large, higher-density
multi-family residences.
Vawter’s Subdivision
The potential 4th Street and Ocean Park Corner Historic District is located in two early
subdivisions in Ocean Park: Vawter’s Subdivision and the Hill Crest Tract. The Southern
California land boom of the 1880s was a significant catalyst in the rapid development of Santa
Monica, and numerous residential tracts were established in the city during this period. The
earliest subdivision of present-day Ocean Park was in 1884, when William D. Vawter purchased
100 acres of the Lucas land located south of Hollister and east of the electric tracks. By 1887,
approximately half had been resold at a considerable profit.
William (W.D.) Vawter (c. 1816-1907) came to California in 1875; he was one of the original
Indiana colony pioneers who once owned the heart of Pasadena. At various times a newspaper
editor, businessman and banker, Vawter established the Santa Monica Street Railway (a horse
car system) later sold to the Pacific Electric. He was one of the organizers of the First National
Bank of Santa Monica and was a member of the Santa Monica Board of Trustees and postmaster
of the city. He was also founder of the Presbyterian church in Santa Monica. Vawter’s two sons,
E.J. Vawter (1848-1914) and William S. Vawter (1845-1917) were instrumental in the
residential, commercial, and infrastructural development of Ocean Park and other areas of Santa
Monica.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
21
After the turn of the 20th century, Vawter and his family continued their activities in Ocean
Park.57 Not only did they continue to re-subdivide portions of the Vawter Tract, but they acquired
portions of other tracts for development. These early 20th century efforts were concentrated in
these tracts, all relatively small subdivisions of 40-60 standard-sized parcels.
Hill Crest Tract
In 1905, the Title Guarantee Trust Company created the Hill Crest Tract. It was a subdivision
of the southerly portion of Lot 16 of the Lucas Tract, and consisted of 30 parcels along Central
Avenue (present-day Ocean Park Boulevard) between S. 4th Street and Beverly Avenue.58
Ownership/Occupancy History
Primary and secondary sources, including city directories, historic newspaper articles, federal
census data, and voter records were consulted to identify former occupants and owners of the
buildings located with the boundaries of the proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard
Corner Historic District.
Throughout its early development, the neighborhood that grew up along 4th Street near Ocean
Park Boulevard was primarily composed of working-class households, though its close proximity
to the ocean indicates that some of the rental units within the proposed district may also have
functioned as vacation rentals. Former occupants of the proposed district were diverse in
occupation. Frank E. Ibbotson, an actor and director, lived at 2506 4th Street (then 2508 4th
Street) from 1914 to 1934. William F. King, the proprietor of a shooting gallery, lived at 2518
4th Street between 1936 and 1940. Henry Scheer, a building contractor, lived at 2524 4th Street
from its construction in 1917 until 1920. John W. Wraith, who listed no occupation in the census
between 1920 and 1940, was alternately listed at 2528 4th Street (1920-1948), 319 Ocean Park
Boulevard (1923), and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard (1926-1935) between 1920 and 1948.
Architectural Styles in the District
Properties within the potential district boundary represent several architectural styles from the
early 20th century. These include Neoclassical/Hipped-Roof cottages (2506 4th Street);
57 Although these maps are only partly legible, it appears that Vawter’s son, William S. Vawter, was actively participating in the
family business by subdividing the 1903, 1904, and 1906 tracts. Upon his father’s passing in 1907, William S. Vawter carried on
the family business.
58 Hill Crest Tract Map, February 13, 1905.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
22
Craftsman (2514 and 2516 4th Street; 317, 319, and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard); Spanish
Colonial Revival (2518 4th Street); Mediterranean Revival (2524, 2525, and 2528 4th Street);
and American Colonial Revival style (2508, 2510, and 2512 4th Street).
Neoclassical or Hipped-Roof Cottage59
One-story, hipped roof cottages with Neoclassical details are a common subtype of late
nineteenth and early twentieth century residential design. These are modest one-story residences
with simplified forms, hipped roofs, and minimal Neoclassical decorative features. Neoclassical
Cottages usually have hipped roofs with prominent central dormers. The portico featured on
grander Neoclassical buildings is here reduced to a simple porch that may be either full- or
partial-width. The porch may be included under the main roof or have a separate flat or shed
roof supported on classical columns. Character-defining features of the style include: one-story
height; square or rectangular plan and simple massing; frequently symmetrical composition;
hipped roof with prominent central dormer and boxed eaves with cornice, or sometimes a front
gable roof with open eaves; horizontal wood siding; full- or partial-width front porch with
classical columns; double-hung wood-sash windows; and simple window and door surrounds.
Craftsman
Craftsman architecture grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts movement. A
reaction against industrialization and the excesses of the Victorian era, the movement stressed
simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship of the building to the climate and
landscape. Craftsman architecture developed in the first decade of the 20th century as an
indigenous California version of the American Arts and Crafts movement, incorporating
Southern California’s unique qualities. Constructed primarily of stained wood, with wide
overhanging eaves, balconies, and terraces extending the living space outdoors, the style
embodied the goals of the Arts and Crafts movement.
The Craftsman bungalow dates from the early 1900s through the 1920s. The bungalow’s
simplicity of form, informal character, direct response to site, and extensive use of natural
materials, particularly wood and stone, was a regional interpretation of the reforms espoused by
the Arts and Crafts movement’s founder, William Morris. Craftsman bungalows generally have
rectangular or irregular plans, and are one to one-and-a-half stories tall. They have wood
clapboard or shingle exteriors and a pronounced horizontal emphasis, with broad front porches,
59 Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement, 330. The term “Neoclassical” refers to the revival of interest
in classical models, dating from the World’s Columbian Exposition, held in Chicago in 1893. Each state in the Union was
represented in a small, Classical pavilion with varying features, incorporating Georgian, Federal, Early Classical Revival, and Greek
Revival traditions, which spanned a century and a half of United States history. Together, these styles fused into what became
known as the Neoclassical style. Virginia Savage McAlester, “Neoclassical,” A Field Guide to American Houses, 2nd ed. (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2014).
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
23
often composed with stone, clinker brick, or plastered porch piers. Other character-defining
features include low-pitched front-facing gable roofs, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter
tails.
As opposed to smaller developer-built or prefabricated bungalows, two-story Craftsman houses
were often commissioned for wealthy residents and designed specifically with the homeowner’s
needs and the physical site in mind. They generally feature a low-pitched gable roof, wide
overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, and windows grouped in horizontal bands. A high-
style Craftsman house is distinguished by the quality of the materials and complexity of design
and may feature elaborate, custom-designed woodwork, stained glass, and other fixtures.
By World War I, the Craftsman style declined in popularity and was largely replaced by Period
Revival styles. The Craftsman bungalow continued to be built into the 1920s, but was often
painted in lighter colors, stripped of its dark wood interiors, or blended with characteristics of
various revival styles.
Character-defining features of the style include: horizontal massing; low-pitched gable roof with
rolled or composition shingle roofing; wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails,
outriggers, or knee braces; exterior walls clad in wood shingle, shake, or clapboard siding;
projecting partial- or full-width, or wrap-around front porch; heavy porch piers, often of river
stone or masonry; wood sash casement or double-hung windows, often grouped in multiples;
wide front doors, often with a beveled light; wide, plain window and door surrounds, often with
extended lintels; and extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick or river stone).
Spanish Colonial Revival
The Spanish Colonial Revival style attained widespread popularity throughout Southern
California following the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego, which was housed in
a series of buildings designed by chief architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue in the late Baroque
Churrigueresque style of Spain and Mexico. The Churrigueresque style, with areas of intricate
ornamentation juxtaposed against plain stucco wall surfaces and accented with towers and
domes, lent itself to monumental public edifices, churches and exuberant commercial buildings
and theaters, but was less suited to residential or smaller scale commercial architecture. For that,
architects drew inspiration from provincial Spain, particularly the arid southern region of
Andalusia, where many young American architects were diverted while World War I prevented
their traditional post-graduate “grand tour” of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. The
resulting style was based on infinitely creative combinations of plaster, tile, wood, and iron,
featuring plaster-clad volumes arranged around patios, low-pitched tile roofs, and a spreading,
horizontal orientation. It was a deliberate attempt to develop a “native” California architectural
style and romanticize the area’s colonial past, though it drew directly from Spanish and other
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
24
Mediterranean precedents and bore little resemblance to the missions and rustic adobe ranch
houses that comprised the state’s actual colonial-era buildings.
The popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style extended across nearly all property types,
including a range of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, and coincided with
Southern California’s population boom of the 1920s, with the result that large expanses of Santa
Monica, Los Angeles, and surrounding cities were developed in the style. Some towns, such as
Santa Barbara, even passed ordinances requiring its use in new construction. It shaped the
region’s expansion for nearly two decades, reaching a high point in 1929 and tapering off
through the 1930s as the Great Depression gradually took hold. Like other revival styles, the
Spanish Colonial Revival style was often simplified, reduced to its signature elements, or
creatively combined with design features of other Mediterranean regions such as Italy, southern
France, and North Africa, resulting in a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations (see
Mediterranean Revival Style). It was also sometimes combined, much less frequently, with the
emerging Art Deco and Moderne styles.
Character-defining features of the style include: asymmetrical façade; irregular plan and
horizontal massing; varied gable or hipped roofs with clay barrel tiles; plaster veneered exterior
walls forming wide, uninterrupted expanses; wood-sash casement or double-hung windows,
typically with divided lights; round, pointed, or parabolic arched openings; arcades or
colonnades; decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster; balconies, patios or towers; and
decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile work.
Mediterranean Revival
The Mediterranean Revival style is distinguished by its eclectic mix of architectural elements from
several regions around the Mediterranean Sea, including Spain, Italy, southern France, and North
Africa. Much of the American architecture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries can be broadly
classified as ultimately Mediterranean in origin, including the Beaux Arts, Mission Revival,
Spanish Colonial Revival, and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. But by the 1920s the lines
between these individual styles were frequently blurred and their distinguishing characteristics
blended by architects who drew inspiration from throughout the Mediterranean region. These
imaginative combinations of details from varied architectural traditions resulted in the emergence
of a distinct Mediterranean Revival style.
In contrast to the more academic and more literal interpretations such as the Andalusian-
influenced Spanish Colonial Revival style or the restrained, dignified Italian Renaissance Revival
style, the broader Mediterranean Revival frequently incorporated elements of Italian and Spanish
Renaissance, Provençal, Venetian Gothic, and Moorish architecture into otherwise Spanish
Colonial Revival designs. The Mediterranean Revival style is sometimes more formal and usually
more elaborately composed and ornamented than the simpler, more rustic Spanish Colonial
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
25
Revival style, and often more flamboyant than the sober Italian Renaissance Revival style. Typical
features of the Mediterranean Revival style include arched entrance doorways with richly
detailed surrounds; arcades and loggias; stairways and terraces with cast stone balustrades; and
Classical decorative elements in cast stone or plaster, including architraves, stringcourses,
cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins.
Character-defining features of the style include: frequently symmetrical façade; rectangular plan
and two-story height; hipped roof with clay barrel tiles and wide boxed or bracketed eaves, or
eave cornice; exterior walls veneered in smooth plaster; wood-sash casement windows, typically
with divided lights; sometimes double-hung windows; Palladian windows or other accent
windows; arched door or window openings; elaborate door surrounds; arcades, colonnades, or
loggias; terraces and stairs with cast stone balustrades; cast stone or plaster decorative elements
including architraves, stringcourses, cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins; decorative grilles of
wood, wrought iron, or plaster; balconies, patios or towers; and decorative terra cotta or glazed
ceramic tile work.
American Colonial Revival
American Colonial Revival describes a varied style that combines a number of architectural
features found throughout the American Colonies, particularly in New England. The style has
neither the strict formality of the Georgian Revival nor the decorative embellishments of the
Neoclassical, although it sometimes incorporates elements of both. It also sometimes adapts
elements of Dutch colonial architecture, such as the gambrel roof. The U.S. Centennial
Exposition of 1876 inspired a sense of patriotism in Americans and fostered an interest in the
styles of the Colonial era. Early examples of a revival style in the late 19th century were rarely
accurate reproductions, but were instead free interpretations with details inspired by colonial
precedents, while later examples shifted to more historically correct proportions and details. The
American Colonial Revival style was popular for grand homes in the early 20th century, and by
the 1920s was being applied to more modest homes. In the 1930s, the restoration of Colonial
Williamsburg brought renewed interest in the style, and it remained popular into the post-World
War II era.
American Colonial Revival buildings are typically one or two stories in height, and are sometimes
symmetrical but frequently asymmetrical, with rectangular, L-shaped, or irregular plans. They
typically feature side gable or cross gable roofs, sometimes with gabled dormers; exterior walls
clad in horizontal wood siding and occasionally brick; prominent brick chimneys; double hung,
divided light wood sash windows, usually with louvered wood shutters; paneled wood doors,
sometimes with sidelights, transom lights, or fanlights; and restrained use of Classical details.
Some American Colonial Revival houses have small, pedimented porches, while others have
shed-roofed porches supported on wood posts extending the length of the primary façade.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
26
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
This section includes a brief description of each property, including exterior alterations and
identification of character-defining features.
Character-defining features are those visual aspects and physical features or elements that give a
building or neighborhood its character and help to convey its significance. Character-defining
features of individual buildings can identify the building as an example of a specific building type,
exemplify the use of specific materials or methods of construction or embody an historical period
or architectural style, and convey the sense of time and place60 in buildings associated with
significant events or people. In general, retaining character-defining features retains the integrity
of an historic property, and therefore helps to retain the property’s eligibility as a historic resource.
A summary of available building permits for each building is included in Appendix A. Additional
current condition photographs are included in Appendix B.
4th Street & Ocean Park Corner Historic District
The proposed 4th Street & Ocean Park Corner Historic District is a collection of early 20th century
residential development in the Ocean Park neighborhood of Santa Monica. There are 14
buildings and 2 accessory structures located within the proposed district, constructed between
1906 and 1936.
2506-2516 4th Street
2506-2516 4th Street is located on the west side of 4th Street, between Hollister Avenue and
Ocean Park Boulevard. The property is flanked to the north by a three-story condominium
complex; to the south by two two-story apartment buildings; and to the west by two two-and-
one-half story single-family residences and a one-story apartment building. The property is
occupied by a six-building, nine-unit condominium complex arranged around a central
courtyard.61 The buildings are set back from the street by a privacy hedge.
The parcel was initially developed in 1906 with the construction of a Neoclassical/Hipped Roof
Cottage at the northeast corner (2506 4th Street). In 1921, two Craftsman bungalows were
added to the south side of the property (2514 and 2516 4th Street). In 1925, the American
Colonial Revival cottages (2508 and 2512 4th Street) and two-story apartment building (2510
4th Street) were added to the west side of the parcel. The five buildings constructed in the 1920s
60 The concept of a “sense of time and place” considers not only architectural integrity but general setting and original
development features. In a historic district, these features typically include original setbacks, landscape features, and civic
improvements such as historic street lamps and street trees. When present, these elements combine to convey the historic
character of a district.
61 The parcel was subdivided in January 1993 for condominiums.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
27
are arranged around a central landscaped courtyard, while the Neoclassical Cottage maintains
its historic orientation toward 4th Street, with rear access to the landscaped courtyard. Although
all six buildings are located on a single parcel, because they were developed over time in a variety
of architectural styles, each building is counted individually as a contributor to the proposed 4th
Street and Ocean Park Corner Historic District, and each building is described individually,
below.
2506 4th Street
The one-story over semi-subterranean basement
Hipped-Roof/Neoclassical Cottage, constructed in
1906, is located at the northeast corner of the
parcel, and faces 4th Street.62 It has a rectangular
plan, simple massing, and asymmetrical
composition. It has a steeply-pitched hipped roof
with asphalt composition roofing, flared bracketed
eaves, and a central dormer with a leaded-glass
window and decorative scrollwork. The exterior
walls are clad in wood shingle and clapboard, with
a wide continuous frieze under the eaves.
Fenestration consists of wood sash double-hung and fixed windows, some with leaded transom
lights. There is a bay window at the south façade. The windows have simple wood surrounds
and projecting wood sills. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the primary (east)
façade and consists of a recessed, partial-width porch with Corinthian columns on a parapet clad
in wood clapboard siding. The porch is accessed by concrete steps flanked by cheek walls with
wood shingle siding. The entrance door is a partially-glazed, paneled wood door with wood
screen door. There is a secondary entrance on the south façade, consisting of a fully-glazed
divided-light wood door accessed by the front porch; and another at the west (rear) façade,
consisting of a partially-glazed, paneled wood door.
Character-defining features of 2506 4th Street include: wood shingle and clapboard siding; wood
sash double-hung and fixed windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills; recessed partial-
62 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2506 4th Street, view facing west.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
28
width porch with Corinthian columns; and steeply-pitched hipped roof with flared bracketed
eaves and central dormer with leaded-glass window and decorative scrollwork.
Alterations
Between 1909 and 1918, the original wraparound front porch was partially enclosed at the
south façade.63 In 2009, the house underwent a seismic retrofit, including a new foundation and
cripple walls.64
Integrity
Although it has undergone alterations over time, including the partial enclosure of the front
porch, 2506 4th Street retains evidence of its original design intent and most of its historic
materials. However, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting
has been compromised. Therefore, it retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association.
2508 4th Street
The one-story American Colonial Revival style
bungalow, constructed in 1925, is located at the
north side of the parcel, west of 2506 4th Street,
and faces the central courtyard. 65 It has a
rectangular plan, simple massing, and asymmetrical
composition. It has a steeply-pitched side gable
roof with asphalt composition roofing, tight eaves,
and a central shed-roofed dormer with wood sash
divided-light windows. The exterior walls are clad
in wood clapboard. Fenestration consists of
divided-light wood sash casement and awning
windows. The windows have simple wood surrounds and projecting wood sills. The primary
entrance is asymmetrically located on the primary (south) façade and consists of a recessed, fully-
63 No building permit was found for this alteration; approximate dates derived from Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the area.
64 City of Santa Monica building permit 09STP0156, January 30, 2009.
65 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2508 4th Street, view facing northwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
29
glazed divided-light wood door with wide, projecting entablature, accessed from the courtyard
by a concrete path and steps.
Character-defining features of 2508 4th Street include: wood clapboard exterior wall cladding
and divided-light wood sash casement windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills.
Alterations
In 1994, the exterior walls were bolted and tied to the foundation, and the exterior cripple walls
were sheathed.66 In 1997, a stair and second story attic dormer were added, and the structure
was upgraded to accommodate a second-story family room.67 In 2004, windows and doors were
replaced as the house was remodeled.68
Integrity
Due to alterations, including the addition of a second story attic dormer and the replacement of
all doors and windows, the property no longer reflects the original design intent, no longer retains
a majority of its historic materials, and no longer reflects historic construction techniques
(workmanship). Additionally, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s
setting has been compromised. Therefore, 2508 4th Street retains only integrity of location,
feeling, and association.
2510 4th Street
The two-story American Colonial Revival style
multi-family residence, constructed in 1925, is
located at the west side of the parcel, facing the
central courtyard. 69 It has a rectangular plan,
complex massing, and symmetrical composition. It
has a steeply-pitched mansard roof with asphalt
composition and built-up roofing and two front-
gabled projections. The exterior walls are clad in
wood clapboard, with smooth plaster and faux
timbering at the upper floor of each of the
projecting gables. Fenestration consists of wood
sash fixed and casement windows. The windows have simple wood surrounds and projecting
wood sills. The primary entrance to each of the four units is located on the primary (east) façade
66 City of Santa Monica building permit EQR1657, November 30, 1994.
67 City of Santa Monica building permit C06029, June 9, 1997.
68 City of Santa Monica building permit C12109, August 3, 2004.
69 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2510 4th Street, view facing southwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
30
and consists of a fully-glazed divided-light wood door, located within a recessed porch or balcony
with wood posts and balusters, accessed from the courtyard by a concrete path and steps.
Character-defining features of 2510 4th Street include: steeply-pitched mansard roof with two
front-gabled projections; wood clapboard exterior wall cladding with smooth plaster and faux
timbering at the projecting gables, and wood sash fixed and casement windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills.
Alterations
In 1994, anchor bolts were added to the existing foundation.70 In 1996, Unit D underwent
alterations, including the removal of one kitchen wall, the framing in of the stairwell, and the
replacement of one window.71 In 2004, the kitchen in Unit B was remodeled, and walls were
removed.72
Integrity
2510 4th Street has undergone only minor alterations over time. However, due to the alteration
of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been compromised. Therefore, it retains
integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
2512 4th Street
The one-story American Colonial Revival style
bungalow, constructed in 1925, is located at the
south side of the parcel, between 2510 and 2514
4th Street, and faces the central courtyard. 73 It has
a rectangular plan, simple massing, and
asymmetrical composition. It has a side gable roof
with asphalt composition roofing and bracketed
eaves. There are two skylights at the south side of
the roof. The exterior walls are clad in wood
clapboard. Fenestration consists of divided-light
wood sash casement windows. The windows have
simple wood surrounds and projecting wood sills. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located
70 City of Santa Monica building permit C4314, July 18, 1994.
71 City of Santa Monica building permit C05636, August 7, 1996.
72 City of Santa Monica building permit EQR3423, May 24, 2004.
73 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2512 4th Street, view facing southwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
31
on the primary (north) façade and consists of a recessed, fully-glazed divided-light wood door
with wide, projecting entablature, accessed from the courtyard by a concrete path and steps.
Character-defining features of 2512 4th Street include: side gable roof with bracketed eaves;
wood clapboard exterior wall cladding, and divided-light wood sash casement windows with
plain surrounds and projecting sills.
Alterations
In 1996, the building was seismically reinforced.74 In 2004, windows and doors were replaced
as the house was remodeled.75 Two skylights were added to the south side of the roof.76
Integrity
Although it has undergone alterations over time, including the replacement of the original
windows and doors, most of the original materials retain intact. However, due to the alteration
of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been compromised. 2512 4th Street
therefore retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
2514 4th Street
The one-story Craftsman residence,
constructed in 1921, is located at the south
side of the parcel between 2512 and 2516 4th
Street. 77 It has a rectangular plan, simple
massing, and asymmetrical composition. It has
a low-pitched front gable roof with asphalt
composition roofing and exposed rafter tails.
The exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard,
with a decorative wood attic vent.
Fenestration consists primarily of wood sash
casement windows. The windows have
simple wood surrounds and projecting wood
sills. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the primary (north) façade and consists
of a projecting, partial-width porch with a front gable roof supported by square wood columns,
74 City of Santa Monica building permit EQR1657, November 30, 1994.
75 City of Santa Monica building permit C12109, August 3, 2004.
76 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation.
77 No building permits were found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2514 and 2516 4th Street, view facing southeast.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
32
accessed from the courtyard by concrete steps. The entrance door is a fully-glazed, divided-light
wood door with wood screen door.
Character-defining features of 2514 4th Street include: low-pitched front gable roof with exposed
rafter tails; wood clapboard exterior wall cladding, and wood sash casement windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills.
Alterations
One window opening was added to the west (secondary) façade.78
Integrity
2514 4th Street has undergone only minor alterations over time. However, due to the alteration
of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been compromised. Therefore, the
building retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
2516 4th Street
The one-story Craftsman residence, constructed
in 1921, is located at the southeast corner the
parcel, east of 2514 4th Street. 79 It has a
rectangular plan, simple massing, and
asymmetrical composition. It has a low-pitched
front gable roof with asphalt composition
roofing and exposed rafter tails. The exterior
walls are clad in wood clapboard, with a
decorative wood attic vent. Fenestration consists
primarily of wood sash casement windows. The
windows have simple wood surrounds and
projecting wood sills. The primary entrance is
asymmetrically located on the primary (north) façade and consists of a projecting, partial-width
porch with a front gable roof supported by square wood columns, accessed from the courtyard
78 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation.
79 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2516 4th Street, view facing southwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
33
by concrete steps. The entrance door is a fully-glazed, divided-light wood door with wood screen
door.
Character-defining features of 2516 4th Street include: low-pitched front gable roof with exposed
rafter tails; wood clapboard exterior wall cladding, and wood sash casement windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills.
Alterations
In 2008, the building was reroofed.80
Integrity
2516 4th Street has undergone no incompatible alterations since its original construction.
However, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been
compromised. Therefore, the building retains integrity of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
2518 4th Street
2518 4th Street is located on the west side of 4th
Street, between Hollister Avenue and Ocean
Park Boulevard, in the Ocean Park
neighborhood of the City of Santa Monica. The
property is flanked to the north by a one- and
two-story condominium complex; to the south
by a one-story apartment building; and to the
west by a two-story single-family residence. The
property is occupied by two multi-family
residences set back from the street by mature
landscaping; the two residences were developed
simultaneously and the rear building is ancillary
to the primary, street-facing building; therefore, the two buildings on the parcel are considered
a single contributor to the historic district.
The two-story over semi-subterranean basement Spanish Colonial Revival style triplex,
constructed in 1936, is located at the east side of the parcel. 81 It has an irregular plan, complex
massing, and asymmetrical composition. It has a hipped roof with clay barrel tiles and bracketed
80 City of Santa Monica building permit 08STP1493, September 15, 2008.
81 City of Santa Monica building permit B3817, April 6, 1936. This permit was filed under the address 2516-2520 4th Street, but
corresponds to this building. This building was designated a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit in December 2017.
2518 4th Street, front building, view facing west.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
34
eaves. There is an exterior chimney at the south façade. The exterior walls are clad in smooth
plaster. Fenestration consists of wood sash double-hung windows, and aluminum sash jalousie
and side sliding windows. There is an arched window at the south end of the east (primary)
façade. The windows have simple wood surrounds and projecting wood sills. The primary
entrance to the front ground floor unit is asymmetrically located on the primary (east) façade
and consists of a single flush wood door, sheltered beneath a pent roof clad with clay barrel tiles
with supporting corbels, accessed from the sidewalk by a concrete path and step. The primary
entrance to the second-floor unit is asymmetrically located on the primary (east) façade and
consists of a single flush wood door sheltered beneath a projecting partial-width porch, accessed
by a winding stair. The primary entrance to the rear ground floor unit is asymmetrically located
on the south façade and consists of a paneled wood door accessed from the sidewalk by an
asphaltic concrete driveway and concrete stair.
The two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style
duplex and garages, located at the west side of the
parcel, was constructed in 1936.82 It has a
rectangular plan, simple massing, and symmetrical
composition. Two windows on the east (primary)
façade have wood shutters. It has a flat roof with
parapet edged in clay barrel tile, clad in built-up
roofing, and a pent roof clad in clay barrel tile.
Exterior walls are clad in cement plaster.
Fenestration consists of wood sash double-hung
windows with simple wood surrounds and
projecting wood sills. The primary entrances to
each of the upper floor apartments are asymmetrically located on the north and south façades,
respectively, and consist of a fully-glazed divided-light wood door sheltered beneath a projecting
pent roof clad in clay barrel tiles, accessed by an exterior wood stair. There are five garage stalls
on the ground floor, accessed by an asphaltic concrete driveway along the south edge of the
parcel.
Character-defining features of 2518 4th Street include: smooth plaster exterior wall cladding,
wood sash double-hung windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, winding exterior
stair at the primary façade of the front building, and hipped and pent roofs clad in clay barrel
tiles.
82 City of Santa Monica building permit B3818, April 6, 1936. This permit was filed under the address 2516-2520 4th Street but
corresponds to this building.
2518 4th Street, rear building, view facing northwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
35
Alterations
Front building
In 2004, the existing second floor exterior landing, rails, and stairs were replaced. 83 The balcony
at the southwest corner has been enclosed, and there is unfinished construction work at the
first-floor porch at the southwest corner.84 Three upper-story windows on the west (rear) façade
have been replaced with jalousie windows. 85
Rear building
In 2006, the existing second floor exterior landing, rails, and stairs were replaced at the rear
building.86
Integrity
The front building has undergone no visible alterations since it was designated a City of Santa
Monica Structure of Merit in December 2017. Although it has undergone alterations over time,
including the replacement of the exterior stair, and the enclosure of a balcony, the building
retains evidence of its original design intent, and most of the original materials retain intact. Due
to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been compromised.
The building therefore retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Although the rear building has undergone alterations over time, including the replacement of
the exterior stairs, the building retains evidence of its original design intent, and most of the
original materials retain intact. However, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s,
the building’s setting has been compromised. The building therefore retains integrity of location,
design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
83 City of Santa Monica building permit C12023, July 7, 2004.
84 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation.
85 No building permits were found for these alterations, which were noted based on visual observation. Per the property owner’s
representative, the unfinished construction work is halted pending a permit to rectify an active code violation.
86 City of Santa Monica building permit 06CBO0796, October 11, 2006.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
36
2524 4th Street
2524 4th Street is located on the west side of 4th
Street, between Hollister Avenue and Ocean Park
Boulevard, in the Ocean Park neighborhood of the
City of Santa Monica. The property is flanked to
the north by two two-story apartment buildings; to
the south by four one-story single-family
residences; and to the west by a three-story single-
family residence. The property is occupied by a
multi-family residence. There is a concrete parking
pad at the west side the parcel, accessed by a
driveway along the south edge of the parcel.
The one-story over semi-subterranean basement Mediterranean Revival style multi-family
residence, initially constructed in 1917, is located at the east side of the parcel. 87 It has a
rectangular plan, complex massing, and asymmetrical composition. It has a flat roof with stepped
parapet, clad in built up roofing; and pent roofs clad in clay barrel tiles or asphalt composition
shingles. There is an exterior chimney at the north façade, with a front gable spark arrestor clad
in clay barrel tiles with exposed rafter tails. The exterior walls are clad in smooth plaster and
wood clapboard. Fenestration consists of wood sash double-hung, fixed, and casement windows,
and aluminum sash jalousie and double-hung windows. There are two leaded glass windows on
the north façade; divided-light, arched transoms at the east (primary) and south façades; and a
bay window with pent roof at the west façade. The windows have simple wood surrounds and
projecting wood sills. There is a window box beneath the tripartite window at the east (primary)
façade. Primary entrances to the units consist of partially-glazed wood doors.
Character-defining features of 2524 4th Street include: smooth plaster exterior wall cladding,
wood sash windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, flat roof with stepped parapet, and
pent roofs clad in clay barrel tiles.
87 No original building permit was found for this residence; construction date provided by Los Angeles County Assessor.
2524 4th Street, view facing southwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
37
Alterations
In 1951, the building was converted from two to three units.88 After 1950, the porch at the
southeast corner of the building was enclosed, as was the porch at the north façade.89 Also after
1950, an addition was made to the north façade. 90 In 2004, the stair, interior walls, and windows
were repaired following fire damage.91 In 2007, the house was reroofed.92 A storage shed
previously located to the west of the building was demolished in approximately 2017.93 An
exterior stair and door at the west (rear) façade was removed.94
Integrity
Due to alterations, including the enclosure of the porches and the addition to the north façade,
the property no longer reflects the original design intent. Additionally, due to the alteration of
the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been compromised. Therefore, 2524 4th
Street retains integrity of location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
2525 4th Street
2525 4th Street is located at the northeast corner
of the intersection of 4th Street and Ocean Park
Boulevard, in the Ocean Park neighborhood of
the City of Santa Monica. The property is flanked
to the north by a two-and-one-half-story
apartment building; and to the east by a one-story
single-family residence. The property is occupied
by a single-family residence.
The one-story over basement Mediterranean
Revival style single-family residence, initially
constructed in 1923, is located at the east side of
the parcel.95 It has a roughly rectangular plan, complex massing, and asymmetrical composition.
It has a flat roof with stepped parapet edged in clay barrel tiles, clad in built up roofing; and pent
88 City of Santa Monica building permit B9796, August 21, 1951. The 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance map depicts this residence as
a single-family residence.
89 No building permit was found for these alterations; approximate date derived from Sanborn Fire Insurance map, 1950.
90 No building permit was found for this alteration; approximate date derived from Sanborn Fire Insurance map, 1950.
91 City of Santa Monica building permit 04COM0274, August 9, 2004.
92 City of Santa Monica building permit 07STP1326, October 11, 2007.
93 No building permit was found for the construction or demolition of this shed; approximate date of demolition derived from
Google Street View images.
94 No building permit was found this alteration; per the property owner’s representative, the stair was removed prior to their
ownership of the property, because it was structurally unsafe. A piece of plywood is currently covering the door opening.
95 City of Santa Monica building permit 3092, November 6, 1923.
2525 4th Street, view facing southeast.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
38
roofs clad in clay barrel tiles. The exterior walls are clad in smooth plaster. Fenestration consists
of wood sash double-hung and casement windows, and aluminum sash jalousie windows. There
is an enclosed arched window opening at the south façade. The windows have simple wood
surrounds and projecting wood sills; some windows are sheltered beneath projecting pent roofs
clad in clay barrel tiles, supported by decorative corbels. The primary entrance is asymmetrically
located on the west (primary) façade, and consists of a flush wood door with sidelights, sheltered
beneath a projecting semicircular flat roof supported by corbels, accessed from the sidewalk by
concrete steps. There is a secondary entrance on the east (rear) façade, consisting of a flush wood
door accessed by concrete steps.
There is a detached two-car garage, constructed in 1947, at the northeast corner of the parcel.96
It has a front gable roof clad in built-up roofing with exposed rafter tails. Exterior walls are clad
in wood clapboard. Fenestration consists of wood sash divided-light windows. The primary
entrance is located on the west (primary) façade, and consists of a pair of rolling wood doors,
accessed by a concrete driveway at the north side of the parcel. A secondary entrance is located
on the south façade, and consists of a single paneled wood door.
Character-defining features of 2525 4th Street include: smooth plaster exterior wall cladding,
wood sash windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, flat roof with stepped parapet, and
pent roofs clad in clay barrel tiles.
Alterations
In 1947, a garage was added to the parcel, and a patio was enclosed.97 In 1959, the building was
sandblasted.98 In 1965, fire damage was repaired.99 In 1995, the building underwent a soft-story
retrofit.100 In 2003, a corrugated fiberglass panel lean-to was demolished.101 Several windows have
been replaced with jalousie windows, an arched window opening at the south façade has been
enclosed, and the sidelights at the primary entry have been covered by metal mesh.102 All
windows are boarded over and the property is enclosed by a temporary chain link fence.103
96 City of Santa Monica building permit B1655, April 25, 1947.
97 City of Santa Monica building permit B1655, April 25, 1947.
98 City of Santa Monica building permit B26002, May 12, 1959.
99 City of Santa Monica building permit B36469, March 24, 1965.
100 City of Santa Monica building permit EQR2809, August 24, 1995.
101 City of Santa Monica building permit C10858, May 19, 2003.
102 No building permits were found for these alterations, which were noted based on visual observation.
103 Per the property owner’s representative, construction work had just begun on this property when the district nomination was
filed.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
39
Integrity
Although it has undergone alterations over time, including the enclosure of the arched window
and the replacement of windows at secondary façades, most of the original materials retain intact.
However, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting has been
compromised. 2525 4th Street therefore retains integrity of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
2528 4th Street/317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard
The parcel at 2528 4th Street is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 4th Street
and Ocean Park Boulevard, in the Ocean Park neighborhood of the City of Santa Monica. The
property is flanked to the north by a one-story multi-family residence; and to the west by a two-
and-one-half-story multi-family residence. The parcel was developed c. 1920 with four single-
family residences oriented toward Ocean Park Boulevard. These include the Mediterranean
Revival-style residence at 2528 4th Street, and three Craftsman bungalows at 317, 319, and 321
Ocean Park Boulevard. Although all four buildings are located on a single parcel, because they
were developed as distinct residences in a variety of architectural styles, each building is counted
individually as a contributor to the proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Corner Historic District.
2528 4th Street
The one-story Mediterranean Revival style single-
family residence, initially constructed c. 1920, is
located at the east end of the parcel. 104 It has a
roughly rectangular plan, complex massing, and
asymmetrical composition. It has a flat roof with
stepped parapet edged in clay barrel tiles, clad in
built up roofing; and a pent roof clad in clay barrel
tiles. There is an exterior chimney at the east
façade. The exterior walls are clad in smooth
plaster. Fenestration consists of wood sash double-
hung and fixed windows. There is an arched
transom at the south façade. The windows have simple wood surrounds with projecting sills; the
arched window at the south façade is sheltered beneath a projecting aluminum awning. The
primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the east façade and consists of a fully-glazed
104 No original building permit was found for this residence; approximate construction date based on visual assessment.
2528 4th Street, view facing northeast.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
40
arched wood door, sheltered beneath a projecting awning, accessed from the sidewalk by
semicircular concrete steps.
There is a detached one-car garage at the northwest corner of the parcel. It has a flat roof with
parapet edged in clay barrel tiles, clad in built-up roofing. Exterior walls are clad in wood
clapboard or vertical wood siding. The primary entrance is located on the east (primary) façade,
and consists of a pair of bifold wood doors, accessed by a concrete driveway at the north side
of the parcel.
Character-defining features of 2528 4th Street include: smooth plaster exterior wall cladding,
wood sash windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, and the flat roof with stepped
parapet clad in clay barrel tiles.
Alterations
In 1921, a 2-room addition was made to the “old house” on the property.105 In 1923, a garage
was added to the property.106 Prior to 1950, the porch at the southeast corner of the building
was enclosed.107
Integrity
Due to alterations, including the enclosure of the porch, the property no longer reflects the
original design intent. Additionally, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the
building’s setting has been compromised. However, the building is otherwise intact, and retains
integrity of location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
105 City of Santa Monica building permit B7483, July 6, 1921.
106 City of Santa Monica Building Permit B3523, January 4, 1923.
107 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation; approximate dates derived
from Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the area.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
41
321 Ocean Park Avenue
The one-story Craftsman style single-family
residence, initially constructed c. 1920, is located
immediately west of 2528 4th St. 108 It has a
rectangular plan, simple massing, and
asymmetrical composition. It has a front gable roof
clad in asphalt composition shingles with exposed
rafter tails. The exterior walls are clad in wood
clapboard. Fenestration consists of wood sash
double-hung and fixed windows. The windows
have simple wood surrounds with projecting sills,
and some windows have security bars. The
primary entrance is asymmetrically located in a projecting partial-width enclosed porch on the
east façade, concealed behind a metal security door, accessed from the sidewalk by a concrete
path and steps.
Character-defining features of 321 Ocean Park Boulevard include: wood clapboard exterior wall
cladding, wood sash double-hung windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, and the
low-pitched front gable roof with exposed rafter tails.
Alterations
After 1950, the projecting partial-width front porch was enclosed.109
Integrity
Due to alterations, including the enclosure of the porch, the property no longer reflects the
original design intent. Additionally, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the
building’s setting has been compromised. However, the building is otherwise intact, and retains
integrity of location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
108 No original building permit was found for this residence; approximate construction date based on visual assessment.
109 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation; approximate dates derived
from Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the area.
321 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
42
319 Ocean Park Avenue
The one-story Craftsman style single-family
residence, initially constructed c. 1920, is located
immediately west of 321 Ocean Park Avenue. 110 It
has a rectangular plan, simple massing, and
asymmetrical composition. It has a front gable roof
clad in asphalt composition shingles with exposed
rafter tails. The exterior walls are clad in wood
clapboard. Fenestration consists of wood sash
double-hung windows with simple wood
surrounds with projecting sills. The primary
entrance is asymmetrically located in a recessed
partial-width screen porch on the south façade, concealed behind a metal security door, accessed
from the sidewalk by concrete steps.
Character-defining features of 319 Ocean Park Boulevard include: wood clapboard exterior wall
cladding, wood sash double-hung windows with plain surrounds and projecting sills, and the
low-pitched front gable roof with exposed rafter tails.
Alterations
In 1944, the roof was repaired.111 The full-width recessed front porch was partially enclosed by
1950.112
Integrity
Due to alterations, including the enclosure of the porch, the property no longer reflects the
original design intent. Additionally, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the
building’s setting has been compromised. However, the building is otherwise intact, and retains
integrity of location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
110 No original building permit was found for this residence; approximate construction date based on visual assessment.
111 City of Santa Monica Building Permit B8111, December 19, 1944.
112 No building permit was found for this alteration, which was noted based on visual observation; approximate dates derived
from Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of the area.
319 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
43
317 Ocean Park Avenue
The one-story Craftsman style single-family
residence, initially constructed c. 1920, is located
immediately west of 319 Ocean Park Avenue, at
the west end of the parcel. 113 It has a rectangular
plan, simple massing, and asymmetrical
composition. It has a front gable roof clad in
asphalt composition shingles with exposed rafter
tails and outriggers. The exterior walls are clad in
wood shingles. Fenestration consists of wood sash
double-hung windows with simple wood
surrounds with projecting sills. The primary
entrance is asymmetrically located in a recessed partial-width screen porch on the south façade,
concealed behind a metal screen door, accessed from the sidewalk by concrete steps.
Character-defining features of 317 Ocean Park Boulevard include: wood shingle exterior wall
cladding, the recessed partial-width front porch, wood sash double-hung windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills, and the low-pitched front gable roof with exposed rafter tails and
outriggers.
Alterations
In 1922, a garage was added to the property.114 In 1943, the roof was repaired.115
Integrity
317 Ocean Park Avenue has undergone no incompatible alterations since its original
construction. However, due to the alteration of the streetscape in the 1960s, the building’s setting
has been compromised. Therefore, the building retains integrity of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
113 No original building permit was found for this residence; approximate construction date based on visual assessment.
114 City of Santa Monica building permit B119, October 23, 1922. The garage has subsequently been demolished.
115 City of Santa Monica building permit B7175, December 9, 1943.
317 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
44
EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
The proposed 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner District is evaluated below for potential
eligibility for local designation as a historic district in the City of Santa Monica. An evaluation
under each eligibility criteria is included.
The proposed district does not meet current preservation practice for identifying potential
historic districts. Because of its small size, the proposed district does not adequately convey a
significant concentration of development or possess unique characteristics that would distinguish
it from other small clusters of residences from this period in Ocean Park, including groupings
found along 3rd Street, 6th Street, or Highland Avenue.
Period of Significance
Based on the history and development of the potential 4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard
Corner District, and the dates of construction for buildings within the potential historic district,
the district is evaluated using a proposed period of significance of 1906-1936. This period reflects
the character of the district as an early 20th century residential enclave and encompasses the
construction dates of each of the properties within the proposed district.
Potential Contributors
Contributing buildings are those that were constructed during the period of significance for a
district and retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance. Based on a review of the
construction history and documented alterations of each building within the proposed district,
all 13 buildings are potential contributors to the district.
ADDRESS DATE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE NOTES CONTRIBUTOR
2506 4th St 1906 Neoclassical/Hipped Roof
Cottage
X
2508 4th St 1925 American Colonial Revival X
2510 4th St 1925 American Colonial Revival 4 units, 1 building X
2512 4th St 1925 American Colonial Revival X
2514 4th St 1921 Craftsman X
2516 4th St 1921 Craftsman X
2518 4th St 1936 Spanish Colonial Revival 2 multi-family
residences
X
2524 4th St 1917 Mediterranean Revival X
2525 4th St 1923 Mediterranean Revival Residence and garage X
2528 4th St c. 1920 Mediterranean Revival Residence and garage X
317 Ocean Park Blvd c. 1920 Craftsman X
319 Ocean Park Blvd c. 1920 Craftsman X
321 Ocean Park Blvd c. 1920 Craftsman X
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
45
Evaluation under Local Eligibility Criteria
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
The proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District does not exemplify
or symbolize elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the
City.
The proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Corner Historic District represents a small collection of
early 20th century residential development in Ocean Park. Constructed in two of the earliest
subdivisions in Ocean Park, development in the district began at the tail end of a renewed
building boom in the neighborhood, and continued throughout the early 20th century. Buildings
in the proposed district were constructed over a period of 30 years and reflect a variety of
architectural styles. The buildings generally have minimal application of architectural
ornamentation, which is common throughout the Ocean Park neighborhood, a result of the
area’s early development as a beachside resort town and middle-class neighborhood.
In recent decades, incompatible infill has intensified throughout Ocean Park, resulting in
numerous small clusters of early 20th century residences scattered throughout the neighborhood,
interspersed with higher density multi-family residential development. Therefore, the proposed
historic district is not distinguishable from other small collections of early 20th century residences
found throughout Ocean Park. In addition, road modernization projects such as the regrading of
Ocean Park Boulevard in the late 1960s and the associated construction of the 4th Street
overpass and widening of 4th Street have altered the original residential character of the Ocean
Park neighborhood. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value
The proposed district does not represent a cohesive architectural style but rather encompasses
modest examples of Neoclassical/Hipped Roof Cottage, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival,
Mediterranean Revival, and American Colonial Revival style residences. There are numerous
neighborhoods of well-defined examples of these styles in Santa Monica that more fully reflect
the original design intent and therefore retain greater aesthetic value. Therefore, the district is
not eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history
Based on research of known residents of the proposed district, no documentation was found to
suggest that any made significant contributions to local, state, or national history. No evidence
was found to suggest that an important event occurred within the district boundaries. Therefore,
the proposed district is not eligible under Criterion 3.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
46
Criterion 4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period,
style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique
or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study
The buildings located within the proposed boundaries of the 4th Street and Ocean Park
Boulevard Corner Historic District are modest examples of their respective architectural styles.
Due to the wealth of period revival style residences in Santa Monica, the buildings within the
proposed district do not rise to the level of significance necessary to be eligible under Criterion
4, which requires properties to represent excellent, unique, or rare examples of their architectural
styles. The district does not represent a cohesive architectural style but rather encompasses
examples of Neoclassical/Hipped Roof Cottage, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival,
Mediterranean Revival, and American Colonial Revival style residences. Therefore, the district is
not eligible under Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect
The buildings within the proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard Historic District
boundary were not designed by the same architect or constructed by the same builder. Based
on available building permits, no significant architects or builders are associated with the potential
historic district. Therefore, the proposed 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic
District is not a significant or representative example of the work of notable architect, designer,
or builder. It is not eligible under Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City
The proposed district is located at the north side of the intersection between Ocean Park
Boulevard and 4th Street in the Ocean Park neighborhood. It does not have a unique location,
or a singular physical characteristic, and it is not a visual landmark within the City or
neighborhood. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 6.
Evaluation under Historic District Criteria
Criterion 1: It meets any of the criteria for a Landmark designation
As demonstrated above, the proposed district does not meet any of the criteria for Landmark
designation. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 1.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
47
Criterion 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
The proposed district is located in the Ocean Park neighborhood, at the north side of the
intersection of 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. The district contains fourteen one- and two-
story residences and two detached garages on five parcels.
The proposed district is not consistent with standard preservation practice for evaluating historic
districts, as it does not represent a significant concentration of buildings united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development. It is composed of a small cluster of five parcels,
which by definition does not represent a significant concentration. The collection of buildings in
the potential district are not distinctly different from other small clusters of residences from the
early 20th century seen throughout Ocean Park, and it does not represent a unified entity. The
grouping’s small size, ad hoc development over a period of 30 years, and varied architectural
styles do not comprise a definable area possessing a concentration of historic sites. The potential
district does not possess unifying features such as consistent design, period street lights, uniform
setbacks, or street trees that create an overall unified entity and convey a strong sense of time
and place. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: It reflects significant geographic patterns, including those associated with different
eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park
or community planning
The proposed district was developed in an ad hoc manner between 1906 and 1936. It is not
the result of a community planning effort, it does not reflect significant geographic patterns, and
it was not developed in association with particular transportation modes. Road modernization
projects such as the regrading of Ocean Park Boulevard in the late 1960s and the associated
construction of the 4th Street overpass and widening of 4th Street have altered the residential
character of the Ocean Park neighborhood and that of the proposed district such that this
grouping no longer retains a sense of time and place consistent with its period of development.
Although it is located on a prominent street corner, based on the altered streetscape, the
neighborhood setting has changed. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 3.
Criterion 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 proposed district is located at the north side of the intersection between Ocean Park
Boulevard and 4th Street in the Ocean Park neighborhood. It does not have a unique location,
or a singular physical characteristic, and it is not a visual landmark within the City or
neighborhood. Therefore, the district is not eligible under Criterion 4.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
48
CONCLUSION
The 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard Corner Historic District was not identified as a potential
historic district in the 2018 HRI Update. Based on additional research, a more detailed analysis
of the architectural features and alterations to the individual buildings within the district, and a
review of the history and development of Ocean Park, this report confirms that the proposed
district is not eligible for designation as a City of Santa Monica Historic District according to the
historic district criteria established in the City’s Landmarks Ordinance, as provided in the criteria
analysis of this report.
The proposed district does not meet current preservation practice for identifying potential
historic districts, and it does not meet the definition of a historic district according to guidance
from the National Park Service. It is a small cluster of buildings that developed over a 30-year
period and is not united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The
proposed district does not retain a strong sense of time and place. Because of its small size, the
proposed district does not represent a significant concentration of related resources, it does not
convey an important association with significant development patterns, and it does not possess
unique characteristics that would distinguish it from other small clusters of residences from this
period in Ocean Park. It therefore is not eligible as a historic district.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Historical Resources Inventory. August 15, 2011.
City of Santa Monica directories.
City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory, Phase III. Final Report. Prepared by Leslie
Heumann and Associates, 1994.
City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement.
Prepared by Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. March 2018.
City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final
Report. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, November 2010.
City of Santa Monica, Planning and Community Development department. Building permits.
Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities. Los Angeles County:
Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908.
McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2014.
NETR Online. Historic aerial photographs of Santa Monica. Historicaerals.com. Accessed April
2019.
“Ocean Park Redevelopment Project.” https://oceanpark.wordpress.com/top/ocean-park-
redevelopment-project/. Accessed April 2019.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Santa Monica. 1909, 1918, 1950.
Scott, Paula A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing Co.,
2004.
U.S. Department of the Interior. “National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1995.
U.S. Department of the Interior. “National Register Bulletin 16: How to Complete the National
Register Registration Form.” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
50
APPENDIX A –PERMIT HISTORY
DATE PERMIT NUMBER WORK PERFORMED ARCHITECT/CONTRACTOR OWNER
2506 4th Street
4/4/1949 B5689 Fire repair Ben Contracting J. Beriman
10/25/2000 B008673 Interior kitchen remodel. No
exterior changes.
Ena Dubnoff
1/30/2009 09STP0156 Seismic retrofit; new
foundation, cripple walls
Marina Construction Ena Dubnoff
2508 4th Street
11/30/1994 EQR1657 Bolt/tie exterior walls to
foundation. Sheath exterior
cripple walls.
Avadon Construction Sara Tamor
6/9/1997 C06029 Addition of stair and second
story attic dormer, upgrade
structure for 2nd story family
room (130 SF)
Alex Ward/owner Sarah Tamor
8/3/2004 C12109 Remodel 2 separate dwelling
units – replace kitchen, bath,
windows and doors (2508
and 2512 4th St)
Frank Schwetzer Barbara Martinez
2510 4th Street
7/18/1994 C4314 Add anchor bolts to existing
foundation: ½” A B @ 4’0.
Min embedment 3” wedge
type anchors.
Frank Schweitzer Courtyard
Associates
8/7/1996 C05636 Remove 1 wall in kit., frame
in stairwell, new cabs.
Reframe 1 door, replace one
window, move wh to under
house. Remodel TORCA
bldg.
Wendell Hamick Richard & Marcia
Capparela
10/23/1996 C05783 Replace cabinets faces,
change sink and faucet, add
new electrical fixtures, plaster
patch, new appliance, new
tile (unit A)
Prather Construction Co Nancy Bekavac
5/24/2004 C11876 Kitchen remodel – replace
cabinets, sink and appliances.
Add lights, remove walls
(unit B)
Owner William S. Nielson
2512 4th Street
4/8/1996 EQR3423 Anchor bolting, roof
strengthening
George R. Lampman Max Reid
4/22/1997 C05971 Bungalow condominium –
replace original interior wall;
repair plumbing; add electric
outlets
Jed Dannenbaum
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
51
DATE PERMIT NUMBER WORK PERFORMED ARCHITECT/CONTRACTOR OWNER
8/3/2004 C12109 Remodel 2 separate dwelling
units – replace kitchen, bath,
windows and doors (2508
and 2512 4th St)
Frank Schwetzer Barbara Martinez
2516 4th Street
9/15/2008 08STP1493 Unit 2516-removing existing
coverings class “A” 20 yr.
composition roof to match
existing buildings, 800 sf
A N R Crown Roofing Inc
2518 4th Street
4/6/1936 B3817 New 2-story 3-family
dwelling
H.S. Hanson Wm. F. King
4/6/1936 B3818 New 2-story 2-family
dwelling
H.S. Hanson Wm F. King
7/7/2004 C12023 Replace existing 2nd floor
exterior landing, rails and
stairs per code compliance
order 04COM0739
Lily Dowler
10/11/2006 06CBO0796 Replace existing 2nd floor
exterior landing, rails and
stairs to the rear units 2522A
& 2522B per code
compliance order
04COM0739
Stan Scholl, engineer Dorit Dowler
2524 4th Street
6/23/1949 B6067 Repair dwelling Paula Lanahan
8/21/1951 B9796 Convert from 2 to 3 units George Terranova Mrs. Lanahan
8/9/2004 CK4044 Repairs per 04COM0274 –
repair stair, interior walls,
windows, water damage and
smoke detector
Lilly Dowler
10/11/2007 07STP1326 Reroof single family dwelling.
Flat roof only tear off existing
roofing and sheathing
Estrada J C Roofing Inc
2525 4th Street
11/6/1923 3092 New one-story dwelling with
basement
Price & Jackson C.W. Lindell
4/25/1947 B1655 Garage and enclosing patio Owner J.H. Skoll
5/12/1959 B26002 AH Sandblasting Co MB Skoll
3/24/1965 B36469 Repair fire damage J Honsinger Clarance E Dowlon
8/24/1995 EQR2809 Soft-story retrofit David Hilan and
Associates
Flinkman Realty
10/21/2002 B68331 Repair 1x1 hole in ext stucco Lilly Dowler
5/19/2003 C10858 Demolish 3’ x 16’, 2’4 &
corrugated fiberglass panel
lean to (per 03COM0151)
Lilly Dowler
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
52
DATE PERMIT NUMBER WORK PERFORMED ARCHITECT/CONTRACTOR OWNER
8/17/2005 C13333 New front porch light install
– new electric service to
garage from house. Moved
water heater rear yard -
enclosure per 05COM0478
work without permit
Lilly Dowler
2528 4th Street/317-321 Ocean Park Blvd
7/6/1921 B7483 New one-story 2-room
dwelling (addition to “old
house” on property?)
Fred Smith J.W. Wraith
10/23/1922 B119 Garage Fred Smith J.W. Wraith
1/4/1923 B3523 Garage J.W. Wraith
12/9/1943 B7175 Repair roofing (317 Ocean
Park Blvd)
William Marshall Roth
12/19/1944 B8111 Repair roof (319 Ocean Park
Blvd)
William Marshall J Warth
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
53
317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard and 2528 4th Street, view facing north.
Contextual view of 4th Street from Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing northwest.
APPENDIX B – CURRENT CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
54
2506 4th Street, view facing west.
2506-2516 4th Street, view facing west.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
55
2508 4th Street, view facing northwest from central courtyard
2510 4th Street, view facing southwest from central courtyard.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
56
2514 and 2516 4th Street, view facing southeast from central courtyard.
2512 4th Street, view facing southwest from central courtyard.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
57
2518 4th Street, front building, view facing west.
2518 4th Street, front building, view facing northeast.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
58
2524 4th Street, view facing southwest.
2518 4th Street, rear building, view facing northwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
59
2525 4th Street, view facing southeast.
2524 4th Street, view facing east.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
60
2525 4th Street, view facing north.
2525 4th Street, view facing southwest.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
61
Detached garage at 2525 4th Street, view facing southeast.
2528 4th Street, view facing northeast.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
62
321 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
2528 4th Street and detached garage, view facing west.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
63
317 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
319 Ocean Park Boulevard, view facing north.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
64
APPENDIX C– SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
1909 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Proposed district outlined in red.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
65
1918 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Proposed district outlined in red.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1950. Proposed district outlined in red.
HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4th Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Corner
Historic District
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
APPENDIX D: HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Historic aerial photograph, 1967. Proposed district outlined in red. Source: NETROnline Historic Aerials.
Historic aerial photograph, 1972. Proposed district outlined in red. 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard
noticeably wider than in 1967 aerial photograph. Source: NETROnline Historic Aerials.
1
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: May 13, 2019
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed 4th Street Historic District (18ENT-0356)
Consideration of recommendation to City Council regarding a new
proposed historic district on 4th Street consisting of certain properties
located within the 2500 block of 4th Street including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524,
2525, and 2528 4th Street, and 317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Various
APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Commission will be conducting a public hearing to discuss the proposed historic
district on 4th Street and provide a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
On November 20, 2018, the Santa Monica Conservancy submitted an historic district
application consisting of five parcels within the 2500 block of 4th Street (Attachment B).
Historic Resources Group (HRG) prepared an Historic District assessment of a potential
4th Street historic district and analyzed the proposed district boundaries based on the
designation criterion established by the Landmarks Ordinance (Attachment C). The
assessment concludes that the proposed historic district does not appear to satisfy the
criterion for designation, as further outlined in this report.
The proposed historic district was evaluated according to the historic district criterion of
the Landmarks Ordinance including defining the characteristics of an historic district,
evaluation of historic integrity and historic context, and understanding the persons of
significance criteria. In evaluating whether the proposed district meets the criterion,
HRG’s assessment utilized the National Park Service (NPS) guidelines and industry best
practices for guidance in evaluating whether the proposed District meets the criteria.
Staff’s review of the proposal included examining the proposed historic district based on
its development history and whether the subject grouping of properties contribute to each
2
other as a unified concentration, while also considering the NPS guidelines. Staff’s
analysis concludes that the properties under review do not appear to meet the criteria for
designation because the proposed grouping does not appear to be a distinct, unified
concentration of resources that significantly conveys the early residential development
patterns of Ocean Park that occurred during the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Historic District Review and Designation Procedures
Section 9.56.130 of the Landmarks Ordinance mandates a review procedure with
established timeframes for completion as outlined below. The Ordinance requires that a
public information/community meeting is held immediately following the application
submittal and that the Landmarks Commission review the proposed district and provide
a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration.
November 20, 2018
Historic District Application Submitted and Determined to be Complete
No permits will be issued to any property within the proposed district while application is pending;
however, exceptions for repair work can be granted.
January 17, 2019
Public Information/Community Meeting
Santa Monica Institute
(no later than January 20, 2019)
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
20 Participants
May 13, 2019
Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing
(To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after
the filing of a Complete application)
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
The Landmarks Commission must make a recommendation within 45 days of its initial hearing date or
the application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
(no later than June 28, 2019)
3
City Council Public Hearing
To be held within 45 days from Landmarks Commission recommendation
(no later than June 27, 2019, if the Commission makes a recommendation on May 13th)
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailing to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
The City Council must make a determination within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the
application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
Historic Districts are approved by Ordinance
Public Information/Community Meeting Summary
As mandated by the Landmarks Ordinance, staff conducted a community meeting on
Thursday, January 17, 2019 at the Santa Monica Institute (SMI). Approximately 20
members of the public were in attendance. The City’s historic consultant (HRG) and staff
provided an overview of the proposed 4th Street Historic District, the Historic District
review procedures, how the designation would affect properties, and preservation
incentives for contributing properties in a Historic District. Comments provided were
generally in support of the proposed historic district.
Public Correspondence
Public correspondence provided to the City prior to the completion of this report
isprovided as Attachment E.
Previous Surveys and Evaluations
The 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s on-
going historic resource survey efforts, and further detailed on page 11 of the HRG report.
Most of the properties included in the proposed district have been previously identified as
contributors to several different versions of potential historic districts including the Ocean
Park Bungalow Courts Historic District, the 2500 Block 3rd Street District, and the 2400-
2500 Block 4th Street District.
The 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District, documented in the 1985 Phase Three Santa
Monica Historic Resources Survey, was identified as a potential historic district as “a
diverse grouping of buildings spanning the first third of the twentieth century.” The 2004
Historic Resources Survey Update of Ocean Park combined the 2500 Block of 3rd Street
District with the 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District into a single potential district
representing early 20th century residential development in the area.
Upon completion of the 2018 city-wide survey update, the potential 2400-2500 Block 4th
Street District was removed from the City’s Historic Resources Inventory due to
inconsistency with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts,
4
particularly because of their diminutive size and inability to convey sufficient information
about patterns of history and development. The contributing properties within the
previously identified potential district were instead evaluated as potential individual
resources. As a result, the following properties were identified as appearing individually
eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation (5S3):
- 2506-2516 4th Street: 2018 HRI: This condominium complex is identified as
individually eligible architecturally as a rare bungalow court.
- 2518 4th Street: 2018 HRI: This triplex was designated as a Structure of Merit in
2017 based on its architecture and property type.
- 2524 4th Street: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible based on its
property type and conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park
neighborhood.
- 2525 4th Street: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible based on
conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood.
- 317 Ocean Park Boulevard: 2018 HRI: Property identified as individually eligible
based on conveying development patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood.
The following properties are not included in the 2018 HRI:
- 2528 4th Street
- 319 Ocean Park Boulevard
- 321 Ocean Park Boulevard
As mentioned in the HRG report (footnote 14), 2528 4th Street, a former district contributor
in the 2010 HRI Update, was not evaluated in the 2018 HRI update due to clerical error.
Residences located at 319 and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard which were previously not on
the 2010 HRI, were not evaluated in the 2018 HRI Update since these properties were
not previously listed.
DISCUSSION
Proposed 4th Street Historic District Application
The proposed 4th Street historic district application includes a narrative on the history of
the Ocean Park neighborhood and architectural significance of the subject properties
located within the proposed study area. Properties within the proposed district boundaries
represent several architectural styles from the early 20th century. These styles include
Neoclassical/Hipped-Roof cottages, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean
Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles.
5
Proposed District Boundaries/Study Area
As shown on Figure 1 below, the proposed historic district on 4th Street consists of certain
properties located within the 2500 block of 4th Street including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524,
2525, and 2528 4th Street, and 317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard. The proposed district
consists of a collection of early 20th century residential buildings in the Ocean Park
neighborhood, including 13 buildings and 2 accessory structures constructed between
1906 and 1936.
Figure 1 – Proposed District Study Area/Boundaries
The proposed district “study area” or boundaries consist of the following 5 parcels:
1. 2506-2516 4th Street (Neoclassical, Craftsman, American Colonial Revival)
2. 2518 4th Street (Spanish Colonial Revival)
3. 2524 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
4. 2525 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
5. 2528 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival), which includes the following residences:
- 317 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
- 319 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
- 321 Ocean Park Boulevard (Craftsman)
Both the applicant’s report and the Historic District Assessment prepared by Historic
Resources Group provides an historic context of the Ocean Park neighborhood and
architectural descriptions of each property within the study boundaries. The HRG report
further includes analysis consisting of the history of previous owners/occupants, building
alterations, and an assessment of the overall integrity of each property.
6
Summary of Historic Context
Ocean Park Neighborhood
The Ocean Park neighborhood was originally subdivided in several phases beginning in
1875. Originally part of the Rancho La Ballona, 861 acres of land owned by the Machado
family were purchased by Nancy A Lucas in 1874 and would soon be subdivided
thereafter. Concurrent with the platting of the Santa Monica Township in 1875, Ivar A.
Weid purchased 50 acres of land from Lucas that would become Ocean Park and
subdivided twelve blocks bounded by Pico Boulevard to the north, Strand Street to the
south, the west side of 3rd Street to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Each
main block consisted of 18 parcels with no alleyways. A portion of the remaining Lucas
ranch was divided into twenty-acre blocks by one of Lucas’s sons and sold to various
parties during the early 1880s. Ocean Park developed southeast from the South Santa
Monica tract. Development occurred in two periods: prior to the real estate crash of 1890,
and during a renewed time of development between 1903 and 1906.
Tourist attractions were constructed in Ocean Park beginning in the late 19th century.
Pleasure piers, amusement parks, bathhouses, tourist accommodations, and recreational
facilities have defined the built environment of this community for more than a century,
including the 1958 establishment of Pacific Ocean Park. The modern history of Ocean
Park is closely related to its development as a seaside recreation destination. Much of
the housing during this initial period of development was deliberately temporary in nature.
Residential tracts, subdivided beginning in the mid-l880s, were typically clustered on
streets nearest the ocean. The 4th Street hill served as the inland boundary. In the early
20th century, Main Street became the community’s primary commercial corridor.
Residential cottages, bungalows, and bungalow courts were constructed as far east as
Lincoln Boulevard that provided permanent housing for residents.
The proliferation of investment and individual developers in Ocean Park, where sub-
dividers could determine the street patterns, resulted in an irregular street pattern for the
town. Subsequent planning efforts to create more unity resulted in the renaming of many
of the area’s streets. Central Avenue, also known as Dwight Avenue (present-day Ocean
Park Boulevard) was one of these streets. Central Avenue initially terminated at 4th
Street. Beginning in 1918, the street was extended, removing or subdividing several
parcels in its path, including 2532 4th Street and 2534 3rd Street.
By the 1950s, property values in Ocean Park had declined and the City studied potential
urban renewal schemes. In 1958, the City’s Redevelopment Agency established a 33-
acre redevelopment area in Ocean Park, bounded by Ocean Park Boulevard to the north,
Neilson Way to the east, the City limit boundary to the south, and the beach parking lots
to the west. The district contained over 1,000 buildings spanning approximately seven
city blocks including many beach cottages, boarding houses, and apartments. By 1966,
all the buildings had been demolished to make way for new development. This resulted
in the relocation of 316 families, 502 individuals, and 212 businesses. Hart, Frazier, and
Wadsworth Avenues were partially eliminated to improve beach access for visitors
arriving by automobile.
7
In the late 1960s, Ocean Park Boulevard was widened and regraded improving the overall
accessibility to the beach. Parcels along the south side of the street were removed or
subdivided to accommodate the widening project. Completed in 1969, the 4th Street
bridge was constructed to allow 4th Street to continue across Ocean Park Boulevard, with
access to the newly-sunken Ocean Park Boulevard at the north and south sides. Between
1967 and 1972, 4th Street was widened utilizing portions of parcels along the east and
west sides of the street. In the 1980s, a landscaped median was added to the center of
the street.
Present-day Ocean Park is characterized by a mix of residential building types including
single and multi-unit development with corridors of low-rise commercial development.
Development has occurred over time, resulting in a widely varied mixture of architectural
styles, building types, and uses throughout the neighborhood. However, the overall
character of the neighborhood results from its early development as a beach resort. The
neighborhood maintains the modest character associated with the temporary vacation
homes constructed to accommodate beach visitors, and the modest residences
constructed by for the permanent working-class residents in the area. In recent decades,
incompatible infill has intensified throughout Ocean Park, dividing formerly cohesive
neighborhoods of into small clusters of the modest residences of early 20th century
development, separated by larger multi-unit residences of greater densities.
Vawter’s Subdivision and the Hill Crest Tract
The proposed district is located within two early subdivisions in Ocean Park: Vawter’s
Subdivision and the Hill Crest Tract. The Southern California land boom of the 1880s led
to rapid development of Santa Monica, and numerous residential tracts were established
in the City during this period. In 1884, William D. Vawter purchased 100 acres of the
Lucas land located south of Hollister and east of the electric tracks. By 1887,
approximately half had been resold at a considerable profit. This was the earliest
subdivision of present-day Ocean Park. After the turn of the 20th century, Vawter and his
family continued to re-subdivide portions of the Vawter Tract. In 1905, the Title Guarantee
Trust Company created the Hill Crest Tract, a subdivision of the southerly portion of the
Lucas Tract, consisting of 30 parcels along Central Avenue (present-day Ocean Park
Boulevard) between S. 4th Street and Beverly Avenue.
Neighborhood Context: 2400-2500 Block of 4th Street
The 2400-2500 block of 4th Street neighborhood contains single-unit residences and
multi-unit apartments and condominium buildings. Buildings in the immediate area consist
of one and two story residential buildings. A majority of the initial development in the block
was comprised primarily of single-unit residences constructed between 1910-1915 during
the Craftsman period. Development of the block continued into the early 1920s resulting
in several revival-styled buildings, and through the 1930s including Colonial, Spanish
Colonial, and Tudor Revival styles. Redevelopment of the immediate area began in the
1950s and 1960s resulting in two-story multi-unit apartments changing the overall scale
of the block.
8
Period of Significance
Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time,
referred to as the “period of significance.” The period of significance of the proposed 4th
Street historic district is identified as 1906-1936, which spans the original period of
construction of all contributing properties within the proposed Study Area. All five (5) of
the properties within the study area would be considered contributors to the proposed
district since they were constructed within this period of significance, and because each
property is generally intact and continues to convey their historic significance on an
individual basis.
Associated Builders, Contractors, and Residents
The subject buildings within the proposed study area were not designed by the same
architect or constructed by the same builder. Based on available building permits, no
significant architects or builders are associated with the potential historic district.
The subject Ocean Park neighborhood was primarily composed of working-class
households during its early development. Former occupants of the properties within the
study area were diverse in occupation. Frank E. Ibbotson was an actor and director who
lived at 2506 4th Street from 1914 to 1934. William F. King, the proprietor of a shooting
gallery, lived at 2518 4th Street between 1936 and 1940. Henry Scheer was a building
contractor who lived at 2524 4th Street from its construction in 1917 until 1920. John W.
Wraith, who listed no occupation in the census between 1920 and 1940, was alternately
listed at 2528 4th Street (1920-1948), 319 Ocean Park Boulevard (1923), and 321 Ocean
Park Boulevard (1926-1935) between 1920 and 1948. Based on research of former
residents of properties within the proposed study area, no documentation was found to
suggest that any made significant contributions to local, state, or national history. No
evidence was found to suggest that an important event occurred within the district
boundaries.
ANALYSIS
Proposed 4th Street Historic District
The proposed district is comprised of five (5) parcels that are all considered potential
contributors that are considerably intact dating from the area’s period of significance
(1906-1936). The properties in total consists of 13 buildings and 2 accessory structures.
The proposed district consists of a contiguous grouping of properties situated on the
corner of 4th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard with considerable visibility from the
intersection. With the exception of the American Colonial Revival style residence located
at 2508 4th Street, the subject buildings within the proposed district are considerably intact
and possess enough integrity to individually convey their historic character. The proposed
district would have a composition of 100% contributors and majority of its properties
contributing to the district’s significance. The following table provides a summary of the
subject properties.
9
Address Description District Status Year Built
1 2506 4th Street
2508 4th Street
2510 4th Street
2512 4th Street
2514 4th Street
2516 4th Street
Multi-Unit Residential
Condominiums
Contributors 1906
1925
1925
1925
1921
1921
2 2518 4th Street Multi-Unit Residential Contributor, Structure
of Merit (2017)
1936
3 2524 4th Street Multi-Unit Residential Contributor 1917
4 2525 4th Street Single-Unit Residence Contributor 1923
5 2528 4th Street
321 Ocean Park Bl.
319 Ocean Park Bl.
317 Ocean Park Bl.
Single-Unit Residences
Contributors 1920
1920
1920
1920
In addition to having a majority of contributing properties within a potential district,
however, a district should have sufficient historical integrity and possess significance as
a whole. Overall, the district should be able to visually and physically convey its sense of
time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance.
Characteristics may include consistency in architectural style or overall scale, uniform
streetscape elements, or location/site configuration that may differentiate itself from other
blocks or properties in the area.
The subject properties are identified on the HRI as potentially being individually eligible
for designation based on either its architecture, property type, or conveying development
patterns in the Ocean Park neighborhood. Although the subject properties were
constructed during a similar time period and may individually convey the development
history of the neighborhood, the proposed district as a whole does not clearly possess a
definable area.
The Landmarks Ordinance does not contain a minimum number of properties to create
an Historic District. However, as stated in the 2018 citywide historic resources inventory
update report regarding the identification and evaluations of “clusters”, such small
groupings of resources typically do not convey sufficient information about patterns of
history and development. Consistent with NPS survey guidelines related to historic
districts, the consultant’s Assessment determined that as currently developed with a
variety of architectural styles and building types from various periods, the small collection
of residential improvements defined in the proposed district boundary does not appear to
be a distinct, unified concentration of resources. The buildings generally have minimal
application of architectural ornamentation, which is common throughout the Ocean Park
neighborhood, a result of the area’s early development as a beachside resort town and
10
working-class neighborhood. In recent decades, incompatible infill has intensified
throughout Ocean Park, resulting in numerous small clusters of early 20th century
residences scattered throughout the neighborhood, interspersed with higher density
multi-family residential development.
Contextually, the proposed grouping of properties do not appear physically defined or
uniquely situated in a manner that would differentiate the group from adjacent residential
properties located on the block or other small groupings of early 20th century residences
from this period throughout Ocean Park, such as existing groupings along 3rd Street, 6th
Street, or Highland Avenue. The grouping of properties do not appear strongly unified
aesthetically through its architectural style and scale to contribute to each other
cohesively as a district. In addition, because of its small size and lack of these physical,
unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping of these residences as a whole do not
appear to significantly convey the historic development pattern within the Ocean Park
area. It reflects a very small aspect of the neighborhood’s modest residential development
and association with the working-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, and
because of its diminutive size, does not fully demonstrate the architectural or
development history of the Ocean Park neighborhood.
Road modernization projects such as the re-grading of Ocean Park Boulevard in the late
1960s and the associated construction of the 4th Street overpass, and widening of 4th
Street have altered the residential character of the immediate area and does not appear
to retain its original setting during its period of development. Based on the altered
streetscape, the neighborhood setting has changed from its early development and does
not appear to possess historical integrity in its setting.
Evaluation Approach
In evaluating the proposed district, HRG utilized the NPS guidelines and best practices
to inform whether or not the district satisfies the Ordinance criteria. The degree to which
these guidelines are relied upon to evaluate a district’s eligibility is not mandated by the
Ordinance, and criterion findings can be made that differ from these guidelines. As such,
staff considered these guidelines and best practices however not exclusively when
analyzing the proposed district.
Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties from similar time
periods and historic contexts as historic districts. While local law does not require
compliance with National Park Service (NPS) guidelines, the City, like many other
jurisdictions, refer to NPS guidelines as persuasive guidance in applying local law’s
designation criteria. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration,
linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development.” Resources that contribute to the historic
identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the
district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non-
contributors.” A district can be comprised of both contributors and non-contributors,
however the majority of the properties that exemplify the district’s historic character must
possess integrity. Within the context of historic preservation, integrity is defined as the
11
property’s ability to convey its significance as described more fully on page 44 in
Attachment D. According to NPS guidelines, a property of a district cannot contribute to
the significance if it has been substantially altered since the period of the proposed
district’s significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new
intrusions that it no longer conveys its overall sense of historic time and place.
Evaluation of Historic District Designation Criteria
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the potential district’s
eligibility based on the criteria discussed below and provide a recommendation to the City
Council for consideration. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss whether the
proposed district satisfies the Ordinance criterion based on the information provided.
Based on the analysis above, the proposed 4th Street Historic District appears ineligible
as a historic district and does not meet one or more of the criteria for designation as
enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B).
9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The subject district does not appear to exemplify or symbolize elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. It represents
a small collection of early 20th century residential development in the Ocean Park
neighborhood. Constructed in two of the earliest subdivisions in Ocean Park,
development in the district began at the end of a renewed building boom in the
neighborhood, and continued throughout the early 20th century. Buildings within
the proposed district were constructed over a period of 30 years and reflect a
variety of architectural styles. The buildings generally have minimal application of
architectural ornamentation, which is common throughout the Ocean Park
neighborhood, a result of the area’s early development as a beachside resort town
and working-class neighborhood. In recent decades, incompatible infill has
intensified throughout Ocean Park, resulting in numerous small clusters of early
20th century residences scattered throughout the neighborhood, interspersed with
higher density multi-family residential development. Because of its small size and
lack of physical, unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping of these
residences as a whole do not appear to significantly convey the historic
development pattern within the Ocean Park area. It reflects a very small aspect of
the neighborhood’s modest residential development and association with the
working-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, and because of its
diminutive size, does not fully demonstrate the architectural or development history
of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear
to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
The subject district consists of properties reflecting various architectural styles and
property types. The subject buildings are typical examples of their architectural
12
styles and lack stylistic articulation and design qualities. The subject properties do
not represent a cohesive architectural style and do not possess aesthetic or artistic
value. Therefore the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state, or national history.
Based on research of former residents of properties within the proposed study area, no
documentation was found to suggest that any made significant contributions to local,
state, or national history. No evidence was found to suggest that an important event
occurred within the district boundaries. Therefore, the proposed district is not
associated with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national
history, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study
of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type valuable to such a study.
The subject district consists of residences that are relatively simple in design and
modest examples of their respective architectural styles. The residences are
typical examples of the period and do not embody distinguishing architectural
characteristics valuable to a study. Based on extent examples of
Neoclassical/Hipped-Roof cottages, Craftsman bungalows, Spanish Colonial
Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and American Colonial Revival styles throughout
the City the subject buildings are not unique or rare examples of its architectural
design or historical type. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy
this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
The subject buildings within the proposed study area were not designed by the
same architect or constructed by the same builder. Based on available building
permits, no significant architects or builders are associated with the potential historic
district. Therefore, the subject properties within the proposed district are not
significant or representative examples of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(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.
Contextually, properties within the proposed district vary in architectural styles and
building types, and are not physically defined or considerably differentiated from
adjacent residential properties located on the block. The proposed district is not
located within a unique location or share a singular physical characteristic, and is
13
not a familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the subject district
does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
Historic District Criteria
9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6).
The proposed district does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for designation
as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B), as described above.
Therefore, the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The proposed district is composed of a small grouping of five parcels, developed
with residences of varying architectural styles that as a group, are not distinctly
different from other small groupings of residences from the early 20th century that
exist throughout the Ocean Park neighborhood. Contextually, the proposed
grouping of properties do not appear as a physically definable area possessing a
cohesive or unified concentration of properties. The grouping of properties do not
appear strongly unified aesthetically through its architectural style and scale to
contribute to each other cohesively as a district. In addition, because of its small
size and lack of physical, unifying characteristics, the proposed grouping of these
residences as a whole does not appear to significantly convey the historic
development pattern of the Ocean Park area that occurred during the first quarter
of the twentieth century. It reflects a very small aspect of the neighborhood’s
modest residential development and association with the working-class from the
first quarter of the twentieth century, and because of its diminutive size, does not
fully demonstrate the architectural or development history of the Ocean Park
neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this
criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The subject district is comprised with improvements of varying dates of
construction, architectural styles, and property types, and was developed in an ad
hoc manner between 1906 and 1936, and therefore is not a distinctive example of
community planning. Contextually, the proposed grouping of properties are not
physically defined or considerably differentiated from the adjacent residential
properties located on the block. Because of its small size and lack of unifying
14
characteristics, the proposed grouping of these residences as a whole does not
appear to significantly convey the historic development pattern of the Ocean Park
area that occurred during the first quarter of the twentieth century. It reflects a very
small aspect of the neighborhood’s modest residential development and
association with the working-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century,
and because of its diminutive size, does not fully demonstrate the architectural or
development history of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Furthermore, road
modernization projects such as the re-grading of Ocean Park Boulevard in the late
1960s and the associated construction of the 4th Street overpass, and widening of
4th Street, have altered the residential character of the immediate area such that
this particular grouping as a whole in its current setting does not appear to reflect
its period of development. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy
this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(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.
Since the proposed district does not appear to meet criterion 9.56.100(A)(6), it
does not satisfy this criterion.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Commission forward a recommendation to the City
Council denying the proposed 4th Street Historic District based on the findings provided
in this report.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials: 4th Street Historic District Application (November 2018)
C. Historic District Assessment Report, Historic Resources Group (May 2019)
D. NPS Guidelines
E. Public Correspondence
1
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: June 10, 2019
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed 4th Street Historic District (18ENT-0356)
Continued hearing for a consideration of recommendation to City Council
regarding a new proposed historic district on 4th Street consisting of certain
properties located within the 2500 block of 4th Street including 2506-2516,
2518, 2524, 2525, and 2528 4th Street, and 317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Various
APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2019, the Landmarks Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss the
proposed historic district on 4th Street and considered written and oral testimony, held a
discussion, and continued the item to allow the applicant to provide historic district
criterion findings supportive of their nomination. The Commission will be continuing the
public hearing to discuss the proposed historic district on 4th Street and provide a
recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
The applicant, the Santa Monica Conservancy, has prepared criterion findings in support
of the 4th Street Corner Historic District, provided as Attachment D. If the Commission
decides to recommend approval of the district, the Commission should discuss whether
these findings are appropriate. If the Commission elects to rely on these findings, in whole
or in part, staff will provide some suggested revisions for clarity.
For reference, the materials provided to the Commission for the May 13, 2019 meeting
are provided as attachments, including the applicant’s materials, staff report, HRG
consultant report, NPS guidelines, and public correspondence through May 13, 2019.
In addition, public correspondence provided after the May 13th meeting is provided as
Attachment G.
2
Attachments:
A. Planning Staff Report (May 13, 2019)
B. Historic District Assessment Report, Historic Resources Group (May 2019)
C. Applicant’s Materials: 4th Street Historic District Application (November 2018)
D. Applicant’s Historic District Criteria Findings
E. NPS Guidelines
F. Public Correspondence received through May 13, 2019
G. Public Correspondence received after May 13, 2019
The Fourth Street Corner District Findings for Designation
!
The!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!name!represents!the!fact!that!it!came!into!being!because!a!
long!uninterrupted!block!was!divided,!creating!a!corner!at!this!location.!The!establishment!of!a!
corner!location!where!a!through!street!did!not!exist!establishes!a!framework!and!context!for!
the!presence!of!this!group!of!residences.!
9.56.100'(B):'Historic'District'Criteria'
'
Historic'District'Criteria'9.56.100'(B)(1).'Any!of!the!Criteria!identified!in!Section'9.56.100(A)(1)'
through'(6)!
!
The!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!meets!three!of!the!Criteria!identified!in!Section!9.56.100(A),!as!
follows:!
'
9.56.100(A)(1).!!Exemplifies,!symbolizes,!or!manifests!elements!of!the!cultural,!social,!
economic,!political,!and!architectural!history!of!the!City.!!
!
The!period!of!significance!of!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!is!1904L1936.!The!City!of!
Santa!Monica!annexed!large!tracts!to!the!east!and!north!of!the!original!city!limits!in!
1905!and!1906,!inspiring!only!sparse!development!in!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District,!
during!1904!in!anticipation!of!the!enlarged!city!because!of!less!convenient!access!to!the!
neighborhood!commercial!center!in!Ocean!Park.!The!cottage!at!2506!Fourth!Street!
represents!this!first!phase!of!development.!Before!and!after!the!annexations,!
development!on!the!very!long!subject!block!of!Fourth!Street!was!concentrated!near!
Strand!Street!to!the!north!and!Hill!Street!to!the!south,!leaving!mostly!vacant!parcels!in!
the!isolated!midLblock!area.!In!1917,!the!city!opened!Central!Avenue!from!Fourth!Street!
to!connect!to!Dwight!Avenue,!which!was!a!small!street!segment!that!terminated!at!the!
beach,!creating!a!new!intersection!through!the!isolated!midLblock!area.!This!work!
successfully!triggered!some!growth!in!the!undeveloped!areas!of!southeast!Santa!
Monica,!and!especially!in!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District.!While!the!roadwork!was!
underway,!the!first!new!construction!in!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!in!nearly!15!
years!broke!ground.!Most!of!the!contributors!to!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!were!
built!in!quick!succession!between!1917!and!1925.!The!last!contributor!to!the!Fourth!
Street!Corner!District!was!constructed!in!1936.!It!replaced!a!1904!cottage!that!had!been!
occupied!by!the!original!owner!until!1935.!
!
After!the!period!of!significance!of!the!contributors!to!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District,!
the!story!of!Ocean!Park!continues.!In!1939,!the!Home!Owners!Loan!Corporation!created!
“Residential!Security!Maps,”!to!evaluate!mortgageLlending!risk.!The!report!for!Ocean!
Park!describes!working!class!residents!and!small!business!owners,!consisting!of!15%!
“foreign!families,”!including!Mexicans,!Japanese!and!Italians,!and!5%!African!Americans.!
The!HOLC!purported!that!because!“subversive!races”!were!increasing!in!the!modest!
neighborhood,!it!should!be!marked!in!red,!which!meant,!“blighted.”!This!1939!redLlining!
rooted!in!racism!meant!that!loans!would!not!be!available!for!investment!in!Ocean!Park!
for!the!next!twenty!years,!effectively!institutionalizing!blight.!The!city’s!1958!Master!
Plan!set!the!stage!for!a!massive!Redevelopment!Program!for!Ocean!Park!in!the!1960s!in!
an!effort!to!alleviate!blight.!In!addition!to!redevelopment!of!the!beachfront,!the!Civic!
Center,!and!in!downtown!Santa!Monica,!the!Santa!Monica!Freeway!was!built!through!
the!center!of!the!city.!A!number!of!associated!major!roadway!changes!impacted!the!
Fourth!Street!Corner!District,!including!the!widening!of!Fourth!Street,!the!construction!
of!a!bridge!over!Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!and!the!excavation!and!widening!of!that!
boulevard.!!
!
Every!parcel!on!both!sides!of!Fourth!Street!between!the!freeway!and!Hill!Street!gave!up!
12!feet!of!frontage!for!the!roadway!widening.!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!widened!to!the!
south,!opposite!the!proposed!district,!and!the!entire!hillside!was!excavated!to!allow!the!
new!boulevard!a!level!approach!to!the!beach.!The!Fourth!Street!Bridge!was!added!to!
span!the!cut!in!the!hillside.!The!change!in!streetscape!did!not!impact!any!other!aspect!of!
the!integrity!of!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!contributors,!whereas!in!other!parts!of!
the!city!similar!changes!resulted!in!the!complete!redevelopment!of!entire!tracts.!Thus!
the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!uniquely!reflects!both!development!movements.!The!
civil!rights!movements!of!the!late!1960s!and!an!accompanying!change!in!attitude!
towards!redevelopment!led!to!the!famous!“middleLclass!radicalism”!of!Santa!Monica!
resulting!in!OPCC,!SMRR,!rent!control,!and!many!other!signature!movements!and!
organizations!in!Santa!Monica’s!more!recent!history.!These!social!movements!rendered!
the!redevelopment!efforts!obsolete!by!the!1980s.!This!significant!era!in!Santa!Monica’s!
social!and!political!history!is!reflected!specifically!in!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!by!
the!median!that!was!added!to!the!widened!Fourth!Street,!restoring!some!of!the!
residential!character!to!the!street.!Murals!in!the!underpass,!and!a!green,!bikeLfriendly!
redesign!of!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!as!a!result!of!the!local!activism!soften!the!1960s!
infrastructure!changes.!These!roadway!changes,!from!60!years!ago,!are!superimposed!
over!the!proposed!district,!and!social!activist!influences!from!nearly!40!years!ago!are!
also!legible,!providing!an!additional!narrative!to!the!district’s!significance.!The!
juxtaposition!of!the!original!narrative,!and!the!later!ones!are!distinct!in!the!appearance!
of!this!district.!The!altered!streetscape!that!passes!through!it!allows!the!district!to!tell!a!
multiLgenerational!story!about!Ocean!Park.!
!!
9.56.100(A)(4).!!It!embodies!distinguishing!architectural!characteristics!valuable!to!a!
study!of!a!period,!style,!method!of!construction,!or!the!use!of!indigenous!materials!or!
craftsmanship,!or!is!a!unique!or!rare!example!of!an!architectural!design,!detail!or!
historical!type!valuable!to!such!a!study.!
!
The!architecture!in!this!district!embodies!stylistic!examples!of!the!early!architecture!of!
Ocean!Park!as!it!evolved!from!1904!to!1936.!!The!evolution!portrayed!in!this!district!
starts!with!a!late!Victorian!hipped!roof!cottage!(1904)!at!2506!Fourth!Street.!The!
cottage!features!wood!shingle!and!clapboard!cladding,!wood!sash!windows!with!plain!
surrounds,!and!a!façade!window!within!a!front!porch!with!a!decorative!leaded!glass!
transom.!A!front!facing!dormer!in!the!hipped!roof!with!highly!decorative!scrollwork!sits!
above!a!front!porch!that!is!inset!on!the!south!side!on!the!façade.!A!leaded!glass!window!
is!centered!in!the!dormer!and!matches!the!pattern!of!leaded!glass!that!fills!the!transom!
of!the!window!within!the!front!porch.!The!original!entry!door!is!paneled!with!a!single!
light.!The!porch!columns!have!Corinthian!capitals,!resting!on!a!railing!atop!a!low,!
shingled!wall.!
!
There!are!four!Craftsman!homes!arranged!in!a!bungalow!court!configuration!at!2508,!
2510,!2512,!2514!Fourth!Street,!characterized!by!wood!cladding,!clapboard!siding,!gable!
roofs!with!wide!exposed!eaves!and!rafter!tails,!and!front!porches!created!by!gabled!
roofs!supported!by!posts!over!the!entryways.!Both!woodLsash!doubleLhung!and!wood!
casements!windows!with!wood!surrounds!and!projecting!sills!are!extant.!The!courtyard!
configuration!has!an!open!grass!area!and!mature!trees!in!the!center.!
!
At!the!rear!of!that!same!court!a!Craftsman!fourplex!at!2510!Fourth!Street!incorporates!
other!stylistic!influences!such!as!American!Colonial!Revival!in!the!main!doorway,!
Monterey!Revival!in!the!full!length!front!porches!and!post!supports,!and!Tudor!Revival!
in!the!side!wings.!It!features!upper!and!lower!balconies!with!spindle!railings!along!the!
length!of!the!front!façade.!Entries!are!sixLlight!singleLFrench!doors.!
!
A!group!of!three!modest!Craftsman!bungalows!are!at!317,!319,!and!321!Ocean!Park!
Boulevard.!They!are!characterized!by!their!wood!cladding,!either!clapboard!or!shingle,!
lowLpitched!gable!roofs!with!wide!exposed!eaves!and!rafter!tails.!The!front!porches!
have!been!nonLinvasively!screened!in,!with!original!front!doors!extant.!Wood!sash!
doubleLhung,!and!multiLlight!nonLoperable!windows!with!wood!mullions,!all!with!wood!
surrounds!and!projecting!sills!remain!on!all!three!bungalows.!All!three!bungalows!have!
shallow!front!yards!defined!by!a!mostly!original,!but!repaired,!low!retaining!wall.!At!321!
Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!the!wooden!Craftsman!cottage!is!clad!in!alternating!widths!of!
lapped!siding.!Extended!rafter!tails!support!the!gabled!roof.!A!front!entryway!protrudes!
from!the!center!of!the!front!facade!under!a!shed!roof,!accessed!on!the!east!side.!On!
either!side!of!the!entry!are!wooden!windows!with!transoms!separated!by!decorative!
mullions.!At!319!Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!the!lappedLsidingLclad,!Craftsman!bungalow!is!
topped!with!a!forward!facing!gabled!roof!and!a!brick!chimney.!A!second!smaller!gable!
extends!the!façade!forward!on!the!west!side.!The!east!side!of!the!façade!is!an!inset!
porch!is!covered!with!a!pergola.!An!original!front!door!remains!intact!within!the!original!
porch!structure.!At!317!Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!the!simple!wooden!Craftsman!cottage!
has!a!forward!facing!gable!roof!with!an!offset!gable!over!an!inset!front!porch.!The!
details!include!extended!rafter!tails,!square!porch!posts,!and!long!splitLshingle!siding.!An!
original!front!door!is!visible!inside!an!intact!front!porch.!
!
Three!Mission!Revival!homes!were!built!at!2524,!2528,!and!2525!Fourth!Street,!which!is!
a!rare!style!in!Santa!Monica.!The!Mission!revival!structures!feature!smooth!stucco!walls,!
flat!roofs,!stepped!parapets,!tiled!shed!roofs!over!windows,!and!Craftsman!style!
windows.!At!2524!4th!Street,!the!Mission!Revival!bungalow!has!a!flat!roof!punctuated!
by!projecting!piers.!The!main!entryway!is!inset!between!two!large!piers!spanned!by!an!
arch!on!the!south!end!of!the!façade.!The!door!itself!is!covered!with!a!screen!and!has!
original!or!old!sidelights!and!a!fanlight!above.!A!tripartite!window!with!a!large!singleL
pane!center!panel!and!two!narrow!side!panels!with!nineLoverLone!sashes!dominate!the!
rest!of!the!façade.!Below!the!window!is!a!large!window!box!supported!by!brackets.!
Shading!the!front!window!is!a!tiled!shed!roof!supported!by!beams!and!brackets!similar!
to!those!that!support!the!window!box.!!Near!the!front!on!the!south!elevation,!there!is!a!
large!arched!window!that!has!similar!proportions!to!the!front!entry.!Close!to!the!front!
on!the!north!elevation!is!an!intricate!stained!glass!window!adjacent!to!a!chimney!with!a!
tiled!gable!top.!Further!west!on!the!north!elevation!is!another!tiled!shed!roof!over!an!
enclosed!porch!accessing!a!side!entry.!At!2528!Fourth!Street,!the!Mission!Revival!
residence!is!oriented!towards!the!corner!of!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!and!Fourth!Street.!It!
is!clad!in!stucco!with!a!banded!parapet!capped!with!tile.!The!Fourth!Street!façade!is!
mostly!unadorned!except!for!the!chimney!and!symmetrical!windows!with!asymmetrical!
mullions!on!either!side.!The!front!door!is!arched,!facing!Fourth!Street,!with!curved!steps!
that!can!be!approached!easily!from!either!direction.!The!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!façade!
has!both!a!tripartite,!arched!window!and!double!transom!windows.!At!2525!Fourth!
Street,!the!flatLroofed!Mission!Revival!Style!bungalow!is!long!and!asymmetrical.!It!has!a!
tileLedged,!irregularly!stepped!parapet.!The!entry!bay!has!a!curved!canopy!supported!by!
decorative!brackets.!The!variously!tripartite!and!paired!windows!have!tiled!shed!roofs,!
which!are!also!supported!by!decorative!brackets.!The!nonLoriginal!front!door!is!flanked!
by!what!appear!to!have!been!sidelights,!which!have!been!filled!in!with!metal!screening.!
A!poured!concrete!planter!bed!extends!across!the!façade.!The!south!facing!façade!is!
symmetrical!with!three!bays.!The!center!bay!has!a!tiled,!shed!canopy!nestled!between!
piers!shading!a!large!arched!window,!which!has!been!filled!in.!On!either!side!are!
tripartite!casement!windows!each!with!a!tiled,!bracketed!shed!roof.!
!
The!Spanish!Colonial!Revival!Style!is!also!present!in!the!district!at!2518L2522!Fourth!
Street!(1936).!Smooth!stucco!cladding,!a!low!pitched!roof!with!clay!barrel!tiles,!
bracketed!eaves,!an!asymmetrical!composition!with!curved!exterior!stair!on!façade,!and!
wood!sash!doubleLhung!windows!characterize!this!property.!This!property!is!a!
Designated!Structure!of!Merit,!with!specific!characterLdefining!features!already!
established.!
!
This!highly!intact!collection!is!valuable!for!a!study!of!Craftsman!residential!architecture,!
and!Mission!Revival!homes!in!Santa!Monica,!and!represents!the!evolution!of!early!
residential!development!in!the!area,!which!has!retained!a!high!degree!of!integrity.!
!
!
9.56.100(A)(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!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!is!located!at!the!summit!of!a!hill,!wrapping!around!the!
intersection!of!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!and!Fourth!Street!where!there!is!a!fourLway!stop!
sign.!!This!prominent!location!gives!the!district!a!strong!visual!and!physical!presence.!!
The!visibility!of!this!intersection!was!enhanced!when!it!was!reconfigured!in!the!1960s!to!
create!a!vehicular!bridge!and!underpass!for!Ocean!Park!Boulevard.!Despite!these!
roadway!reconfigurations,!the!district!maintained!its!historic!integrity!as!a!cohesive!
group!of!historic!residences,!but!was!made!visible!from!many!new!vantage!points!by!the!
roadway!changes.!It!is!an!established!and!familiar!visual!feature!of!Ocean!Park.!!As!a!
group!of!14!historic!homes!uninterrupted!by!nonLcontributors,!located!at!the!crest!of!
hill,!the!highly!visible!integrity!and!cohesion!of!the!district!is!a!singular!physical!
characteristic.!
!
!
Historic'District'Criteria'9.56.100'(B)(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.!
!
The!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!is!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.!
!
The!district!is!a!highly!unified!cohesive!grouping!of!residences,!which!wraps!around!the!
northwest!corner!of!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!and!Fourth!Street.!Containing!100%!contributors!
and!no!intrusions!outside!the!period!of!significance,!the!district!is!unified!by!physical!
development!and!architectural!quality.!The!period!of!significance!begins!in!1904,!when!the!first!
residence!in!the!district!was!built!at!2506!Fourth!Street,!a!late!Victorian!hipped!roof!cottage,!
through!1936,!when!the!multifamily!threeLunit!twoLstory!Spanish!Colonial!Revival!home!at!
2518!Fourth!Street!was!built.!There!is!a!significant!concentration!of!two!architectural!styles:!
Craftsman!and!Mission!Revival,!dating!from!1917!through!1925.!!Mission!Revival!residences!are!
relatively!rare!in!Santa!Monica,!but!this!district!contains!three!in!a!unified!grouping,!two!
adjacent!to!each!other,!and!one!across!Fourth!Street.!!The!various!examples!of!Craftsman!
bungalows!reveal!many!different!architectural!treatments!of!this!style,!which!dominated!
residential!construction!in!Santa!Monica!from!the!midLteens!to!the!midLtwenties.!There!are!
modest!boxLlike!bungalows!along!Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!more!elaborate!bungalows!on!Fourth!
Street,!and!both!singleLfamily!and!multiLfamily!types.!!Eclectic!tendencies!appear!with!
borrowings!from!American!Colonial!Revival,!Monterey!Revival,!and!Tudor!Revival!on!some!
District!bungalows.!!Five!of!the!bungalows!are!arranged!as!a!bungalow!court,!a!popular!housing!
type!in!Ocean!Park!at!that!time.!!The!period!of!significance!ends!in!1936!with!the!appearance!of!
a!fully!realized!Spanish!Colonial!Revival!triplex!which!contains!an!accessory!structure!at!its!rear!
that!has!ground!floor!garages!and!small!units!above.!Therefore,!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!
District!possesses!a!highly!concentrated!group!of!historic,!scenic!and!thematic!sites.!
!
Historic'District'Criteria'9.56.100'(B)(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.!
!
The!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!provides!a!legible!representation!of!two!phases!of!
development!in!Ocean!Park.!The!period!of!significance!of!the!district!includes!the!period!
beginning!in!1904,!when!the!city!was!preparing!to!expand!its!borders,!which!was!expected!to!
trigger!a!greater!surge!in!development!than!it!actually!did.!And!it!concludes!with!a!second!
effort!to!encourage!development!in!the!city!by!opening!Central!Avenue!(aka!Ocean!Park!
Boulevard),!a!large!boulevard!through!the!Ocean!Park!Neighborhood,!which!successfully!
resulted!in!the!residential!development!of!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!ahead!of!the!great!
development!boom!in!California!of!the!1920s.!It!was!the!extension!of!Central!Avenue!(Ocean!
Park!Boulevard)!westward!that!facilitated!access!to!the!parcels,!which!were!subsequently!
developed!in!the!Fourth!Street!Corner!District.!A!major!shift!in!transportation!modes!in!
Southern!California!in!the!1950s!and!1960s!led!to!the!obsolescence!of!streetcars,!making!way!
for!the!dominance!of!the!automobile.!High!volume!freeways!and!other!traffic!networks!were!
built!in!and!through!neighborhoods!all!over!the!region.!Many!neighborhoods!were!completely!
wiped!out,!or!unrecognizably!transformed,!but!the!Corner!District!is!a!rare!example!that!
remained!intact!when!a!series!of!highway!improvements!surrounded!it.!!
!
Historic'District'Criteria'9.56.100'(B)(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!Fourth!Street!Corner!District!is!located!at!the!summit!of!a!hill,!wrapping!around!the!
intersection!of!Ocean!Park!Boulevard!and!Fourth!Street!where!there!is!a!fourLway!stop!sign.!!
This!prominent!location!gives!the!district!a!strong!visual!and!physical!presence.!!The!visibility!of!
this!intersection!was!enhanced!when!it!was!reconfigured!in!the!1960s!to!create!a!vehicular!
bridge!and!underpass!for!Ocean!Park!Boulevard,!the!district!maintained!its!historic!integrity!as!a!
cohesive!group!of!historic!residences,!but!was!made!visible!from!many!new!vantage!points!by!
the!roadway!changes.!It!is!an!established!and!familiar!visual!feature!of!Ocean!Park.!!As!a!group!
of!14!historic!homes!uninterrupted!by!nonLcontributors,!located!at!the!crest!of!hill,!the!highly!
visible!integrity!and!cohesion!of!the!district!is!a!singular!physical!characteristic.!
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Founded 1875
“Populus felix in urbe felici”
Monday, June 10, 2019
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers, Room 213
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION: Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM
1. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Dolores Sloan, Chair
Richard Brand
Kenneth Breisch
Roger Genser
Amy Green
Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore
Also Present:
Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Steve Mizokami, Commission Liaison
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III
Absent:
Ruth Shari
2. REPORT FROM STAFF:
Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner and Liaison to the Landmarks Commission,
provided a report including: demolition applications for 401 19th Street and 303
12th Street have been withdrawn; a landmark application has been filed for the
“Compass Rose” at the Santa Monica Airport; and 5 Mills Act Applications have
been filed and will be processed this year. Mr. Mizokami provided an update on
the appeal of the Landmark designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California
Avenue, which was granted by the City Council on May 14, 2019. Mr. Mizokami
stated that a future Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission to consider
2
the update of the Landmarks Ordinance will be rescheduled and reminded the
Commission of the emergency exit procedures.
3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
4-A. May 13, 2019
7:12 PM
Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a
motion to approve as amended. Chair Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was
held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
5-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0165, 2663-2671 Main Street, approval to
allow the removal of non-original building features, removal of the building’s
exterior paint color, and restoration of the existing brick mate rial to its natural
colors on the subject Mendota Block building, a designated City Landmark.
7:21 PM
Commissioner Genser disclosed he resides within 500 feet of the property,
recused himself and left the chambers.
Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a
motion to approve as amended. Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion. A
roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Genser, Shari
5-B. Structure of Merit 19ENT-0029, 516 Colorado Avenue, denying the subject
building as a Structure of Merit.
7:22 PM
3
Commissioner Brand disclosed he resides within 500 feet of the property,
recused himself and left the chambers.
Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a
motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A
roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Brand, Shari
6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
7:27 PM
The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Carol Lemlein
(Santa Monica Conservancy) regarding the press and community meetings held
by the new property owner of 1413 Michigan Avenue (Nikkei Hall). Ms. Lemlein
stated concern as this is a designated property, the Landmarks Commission
should review the project preliminarily.
Mr. Mizokami stated that while staff has met with the property owner to review a
preliminary concept design, there has been no formal project application filed
with the City.
7. DEMOLITION PERMITS:
7-A. Historic Resources Preliminary Review Hearing. Preliminary review and
consideration of whether there is credible evidence in the record to proceed with
a further public hearing to determine whether buildings or structures meet the
criteria for a City Landmark or Structure of Merit in accordance with Interim
Zoning Ordinance Number 2599 (CCS). Upon filing an application for demolition
of a building or structure that is 40 years of age or older, applicants request a
review by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether the building or
structure meets one or more of the criteria for Landmark or Structure of Merit.
Preliminary review hearings do not result in buildings or structures being
designated as City Landmarks or Structures of Merit.
7:31 PM
Commissioners provided the following ex parte communication disclosures:
Commissioner Genser visited all properties with the exception of 7-A.3 AND 7-
A.4 and noted that those items were reviewed when he was previously on the
Commission, and no action was taken. He said he had visited the properties at
the time and did not visit them again. Chair Sloan, Chair Pro Tempore
4
Rosenbaum, Commissioners Breisch and Green noted that they visited the
properties.
1. 1808 Pier Avenue (19BLD-1495)
(19ENT-0189) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review
R1 – Single-Unit Residential
Single Family Dwelling & Garage
Approximate Date of Construction: 1944
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
End of 75 Day Period: July 21, 2019
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that no further hearing is
required. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the
motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
2. 1238 San Vicente Boulevard (19BLD-1561)
(19ENT-0190) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review
R1 – Single-Unit Residential
Single Family Dwelling, Garage & Wall
Approximate Date of Construction: 1946
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
End of 75 Day Period: July 25, 2019
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that no further hearing is
required. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the
motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
3. 938 Palisades Beach Road (19BLD-1275)
(19ENT-0214) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review
R2 BCH – Low Density Residential Beach Overlay
Single Family Dwelling
Approximate Date of Construction: 1954
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
End of 75 Day Period: August 1, 2019
5
Chair Sloan made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner
Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
4. 940 Palisades Beach Road (19BLD-1317)
(19ENT-0215) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review
R2 BCH – Low Density Residential Beach Overlay
Single Family Dwelling
Approximate Date of Construction: 1923
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
End of 75 Day Period: August 1, 2019
Chair Sloan made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner
Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
9. OLD BUSINESS: None
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Landmark Designation 18ENT -0276, 808 Woodacres Road, consideration to
determine whether the residence, in whole or in part, should be designated as a
City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel
should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or
safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the
application based on whether the application, research and public testimony
presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the re quired
criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). This
item is continued from the Commission’s April 8, 2019 meeting. At that meeting,
the Commission considered written and oral testimony, commenced
deliberations, and continued the item at the request of the property owner.
7:35 PM
Commissioners provided the following ex parte communication disclosures:
6
Commissioner Genser stated that he was previously a member of the Santa
Monica Conservancy, had resigned his position, has not discussed the matter
with the Conservancy, nor anyone else, and stated that he can be completely
objective on the matter of designation of the property. Commissioner Green
stated that she was previously a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, had
resigned her membership of the Santa Monica Conservancy last year and did not
have discussions regarding the property. Chair Sloan previously held a position
on the nominations committee of the Santa Monica Conservancy, she stated that
she had resigned her membership and can be impartial on the item.
Commissioner Breisch had previously been a member of the Santa Monica
Conservancy, had resigned his membership. He stated that he has not had
communication on this matter and can be fair and impartial. Chair Pro Tempore
Rosenbaum noted he has never been a member of the Santa Monica
Conservancy and has no disclosures.
Mr. Mizokami noted the City’s consultant, Jan Ostashay, has revised the period
of significance to start in 1920 reflecting the original construction date.
Ruthann Lehrer, representing the Santa Monica Conservancy, made a brief
presentation noting the consultant assessments of the properties and that she
met with the property owner and her financial advisor.
Mr. Roger Diamond, attorney representing the property owner, noted that there
was a deed restriction signed by Mr. Parkinson that provided a racial restriction
on the property. Mr. Diamond stated that since it appears that Mr. Parkinson was
a racist, his association with the property should be considered differently. He
also stated that required maintenance of the property is an undue burden as this
is not an income-producing property. He also noted that a certificate of economic
hardship cannot be considered until after action on a designation He also noted
that the property is not visible from the Public Right of Way.
Marcia Alphson, property owner, was granted 3 additional minutes to speak in
addition to the customary time allocated to property owners and their
representatives under the Commission’s Rules of Order by 2/3rds of the
Commission.
Ms. Alphson stated that the property cannot be seen from the street. She stated
concern that the applicant appears to have no consideration for the property
owner. She stated that Ms. Lehrer has taken her words out of context and used
them in a manner to advance her own argument. Ms. Alphson stated that her
neighbor Mr. Jacobson has also hired an attorney and may have other motives
for advocating designation of the property. Ms. Alphson also stated that her
father would not have been in favor of designation.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission in opposition to
the designation: Suzanne Wicker (Burbank resident); Scott O’Neil (resident);
7
Shala O’Neil (resident); Karen Locke (resident) submitted written statements by
other property owners along Woodacres Road in opposition to the designation;
William Brown (resident), Mi Lachman (resident); Don Woods (adjacent
neighbor); and Mary Beth Woods (adjacent neighbor).
David Boras, Chief Financial Officer for the Alphson family, requested that the
Commission have concern for the Alphson family. He stated that designation
would reduce the property value by 20%. He thanked Mike Salazar and Ruthann
Lehrer for meeting with them. He stated that the Mills Act would not be an
advantage to Ms. Alphson. He noted concern that the property should be put up
for sale without designation. In response to the Commission’s inquiry, he stated
that he was representing the property owner.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission in support of the
designation: Stephen Gee (author and documentarian who has studied John
Parkinson); Melanie Parkinson Larson (great-granddaughter of John Parkinson,
architect of the residence); Paddy Calistro (resident); Mike Salazar,
(resident/member of the Santa Monica Conservancy speaking on his own
behalf); Christina Hildebrand (realtor), Jerry Rubin (resident).
Marcia Alphson restated her position in rebuttal to the public testimony.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum suggested that the applicant get 5 additional
minutes for a total of 8 minutes in light of the additional speaking time afforded
the property owner. All Commissioners were in favor, so the applicant was
granted 8 minutes for rebuttal.
Ms. Lehrer, in rebuttal stated that the type of deed restrictions that were
mentioned were standard practice all over Southern California in the 20’s, and
that they may have no bearing on the actual beliefs of any particular property
owner(s). She stated that she can see the property from the street, even though
she is not tall. She discussed incentives for historic properties, and flexibility
given to the property interiors. She stated that she had more than one
conversation with the property owner’s tax attorney a nd understood their
intention to sell the property, and they valued the property and not the house.
Therefore, the Conservancy felt the property was at risk of demolition. She also
reiterated the reasons she believed the property should be designated. Carol
Lemlein, also speaking for the applicant on rebuttal, called the Commission’s
attention to the letters received from organizations such as the Los Angeles
Conservancy and North of Montana Association.
The Commission continued their deliberations begun at the previous meeting.
Chair Sloan spoke regarding the legality of deed restrictions, and that she
believed that such a restriction is not legal. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum also
agreed and stated that his understanding that such covenants are no longer
legal. Commissioner Breisch stated that in 1948 the Supreme Court overturned
8
all restrictive covenants. Commissioner Breisch also stated that at that time it’s
estimated that over 80% of properties in the Los Angeles region were under
restrictive covenants. While he personally finds it despicable, he noted that was
part of standard real estate practice and not necessarily reflective of a particular
property owner’s beliefs.
Commissioner Breisch also stated that in 1978 the U. S. Supreme Court upheld
the ability for the City of New York to designate property as City Landmarks, and
that designations have been deemed not as a taking.
Commissioner Breisch made a motion to accept the staff report, Findings 1
through 5, and designate the property. Commissioner Green seconded the
motion.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum reiterated that he supports the designation
based on the findings in the staff report, testimony in both Commissi on meetings,
and the balance of the record.
Chair Sloan reviewed the photographs and material in the packet again and
stated her support for the motion.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum clarified that the motion shall consist of the
primary subject residence, include the landmark parcel, exclude the detached
accessory structure, and include the character defining features on pages19 and
20 of the Ostashay report. Commissioner Breisch agree d that was a friendly
amendment to the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
9:13 PM
Chair Sloan called for a break
9:29 PM
Chair Sloan called the meeting back to order
10-B. Historic District application 18ENT-0356, consideration of a recommendation to
City Council regarding an application for designation of a new proposed historic
district on 4th Street consisting of certain properties located within the 2500 block
of 4th Street including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524, 2525, and 2528 4th Street, and
317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard. This item is continued from the Commission’s
May 13, 2019 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission considered written and
9
oral testimony, commenced deliberations, and continued the item at the request
of the applicant.
9:31 PM
Mr. Mizokami provided a brief staff report, noting that the City’s his toric
consultant was available.
Ruthann Lehrer (representing the applicant, the Santa Monica Conservancy)
stated that they believed that the resources represent a cohesive district. She
stated that the consultant identified that the district was too smal l to be a district
and that they disagreed with that interpretation. She discussed the architectural
merits of each property. She reiterated that this district remained intact even with
the changes of the roadway. She stated that the integrity of the resou rces are
high, and that it has a strong visual presence. She noted that the findings are
necessarily detailed and can be edited. Ms. Lemlein (representing the applicant,
the Santa Monica Conservancy) stated that the findings can be used as a point
of departure.
Commissioner Brand asked the applicant to explain how they see it as a
cohesive district. Ms. Lehrer responded that the architectural styles represent the
neighborhood as it evolved, and that a single style is not necessary, but
represents how the neighborhood developed over this period of time.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum noted that in looking at the previous HRIs
different configurations of such a district differed and had included the 2400 block
of 4th Street. He asked the applicant to clarify the choice of the district
boundaries. Ms. Lehrer responded that the submitted district has a particular
sensibility with the creation of Central Avenue, now Ocean Park Boulevard,
which is different from the 2400 block.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum also asked the applicant about portions of the
findings that are outside the period of significance. Ms. Lemlein stated that they
were amplifying that the district still held together, rather than what had been
stated in the consultant’s report which discounted the district in part due to
changes in the roadway that occurred later. She also clarified that 14 structures
are included in the application, including the accessory structure to 2518 4 th
Street. Ms. Lemlein also stated that Mission Revival Style is relatively rare in the
City.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission in support of the
proposed district: Mike Salazar (resident), Jeffrey Sturges (resident), and Rich
Capparela (resident).
Roger Genser asked Mr. Salazar why 3rd Street wasn’t included in the proposed
district. Mr. Salazar didn’t know, but also stated that the current HRI has removed
a number of potential districts and he is not in agreement with that assessment.
10
The following member of the public addressed the Commission in support of the
consultant and staff report: Grant Carpenter (owner’s representative of 5 of the
properties) stated that the criteria should be met in a significant way in order to
recommend designation of a district. He stated that a criterion of “how a
community develops over a period of time” can be so broad as to apply to
anything.
Ms. Lehrer spoke in rebuttal and stated that the proposed district is a cohesive
and unified grouping, with 4 styles that portray an evolution of the neighborhood.
Chair Sloan asked how the carving of the district was identified. Ms. Lehrer
identified that the cut through of Central Avenue sponsored development of the
area and told a story of Ocean Park.
Discussion was held. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum spoke in support of the
district, noted that there are 14 buildings on 5 parcels, and that there is no
requirement in the ordinance as to size. He stated that the City Council had
designated the 11th Street District, which is also a small number of properties, so
that should put the matter to rest. He also noted that the properties have been
identified in previous HRIs.
Chair Sloan noted that while there is no requirement for integrity, the structures
have sufficient integrity to be noticed. She noticed a flavor of the buildings that
have been maintained, even with moving the earth to change the roadway. The
properties remain and still tell the story. She also noted that she appreciated the
variety in different styles, and there is also cohesiveness that is truly unique. The
applicants appear to have a clear intellectual concept around which the
application has been made.
Commissioner Breisch asked the City’s consultant to explain the reasoning
behind their recommendation.
Christine Lazzaretto, the City’s consultant from Historic Resources Group, stated
that the recommendation is based on current best practice and the application of
local criteria. A place that is definable, a linkage historically that is a definable
area. This appears to be one of many clusters around Santa Monica which are
quite similar, and the area does not appear to be a clearly definable area.
Commissioner Genser stated that while he has gone back and forth, is leaning
toward recommending in favor of designation. He stated that the craftsman
structures on either end act as bookends. The buildings on either side of 4 th
Street also provide a gateway. Each building is a contributor and the area has a
cohesive quality. The courtyard development is very strong. He stated that the
district appears to be a cross section of architecture styles in Ocean Park. The
widening of 4th Street may not have an effect on the potential district.
11
Commissioner Brand stated that while he agrees with the statements by
Commissioner Genser, he does not see the cohesiveness of the district, and
does not believe it rises to the level of significance. He stated that he is not
inclined to support the creation of a district.
Commissioner Breisch stated that there may not be a sufficient concentration to
designate a district, and that this district should be reviewed against other
potential districts. He stated that just because these buildings have survived does
not mean they rise to represent a district. There has been a fair amount of
research done although he is not convinced by the argument that the creation of
the street at Central (now Ocean Park Boulevard) spurred development because
at some point every street was established and in turn spurred development. He
stated concern with the discussion of style and the mixture of styles represented.
He noted that much of the proposed district is vernacular Mediterranean, and that
on the whole does not appear to be strong enough to be a district.
Commissioner Genser asked what might happen to the Structure of Merit
designation for 2518 4th Street if the district was designated. Mr. Mizokami noted
that the property would become a contributor to the district and be reviewed as
such.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum restated his support for the request and stated
that there is sufficient concentration and note d that many of these properties are
included in the current HRI.
Roxanne Tanemori, Acting Planning Manager, stated that the HRI update was
done to look at best practice. She encouraged the C ommission to review all the
material, including the consultant’s report and staff report, relative to the criteria
in the ordinance.
Commissioner Brand made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to
recommend that the City Council not designate the d istrict, denying the
designation. Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and failed by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green
NAYS: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
3-3 vote, motion fails.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to recommend that the City
Council designate the district and made specific recommendations regarding
12
revisions to the draft findings, including a statement that the district is composed
of a diverse group of buildings. He recommended removing elements that
referred to dates outside the period of significance, such as the second and third
paragraphs under findings for 9.56.100(A)(1). He stated that the findings should
focus more on the character-defining features of each property as noted in the
report by the City’s consultant.
Commissioner Genser seconded motion, and agreed with the findings as revised
by Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum
Mr. Mizokami made recommendations regarding the suggested findin gs, stated
that the findings would not include the elements outside the period of
significance, and the historic styles should be as described by the consultant.
A roll call was held for the motion and failed by the following vote:
AYES: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan
NAYS: Brand, Breisch, Green
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shari
3-3 vote, motion fails.
Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission had failed
to act as any action requires four votes in the affirmative. As such, the
Commission has failed to make a recommendation, and under the Landmarks
Ordinance, the application will be deemed disapproved. She further stated that
according to the Ordinance, the matter could go to City Council on appeal, and
that any member of the public could file an appeal.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Report from Commission representative at the May 14, 2019 City Council
meeting regarding the appeal of the landmark designation of Sycamore trees at
1122 California Avenue, action taken by the City Council, and the continued
importance of public outreach to enhance public understanding of the City’s
historic preservation program.
10:46 PM
Chair Sloan provided a written report which was sent to the Commissioners and
included on the dais. She described the Council meeting and the perception that
the Commission was interested in saving the tree, which she thought was
erroneous. She said that there was an organized effort by the appellant. She also
stated that members of the public in support of the designation also discussed a
tree protection ordinance, and she was concerned that the Commission’s action
13
was conflated with the request for a tree protection ordinance. She stated
concern about the perception of the Commission.
10:58 PM
Chair Sloan made a motion to continue the meeting past 11 pm. The motion was
unanimously approved by a voice vote.
Diane Miller (resident) stated concern with the future of preservation, the future of
the Commission, and about the Council’s decision . Ms. Miller suggested that the
Landmarks Ordinance update may be an opportunity to strengt hen the
Commission’s actions.
Sherrill Kushner stated that the Council’s decision called into question the
authority of the Landmarks Commission. She recommended a non -binding
resolution be considered and provided a written statement for consideration. Sh e
added to her recommendation that an updated staff report be provided to the
Council.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated appreciation for the comments of the
Chair and the public. He stated that while he did not attend the meeting, he
listened to much of it, and had a different impression. He stated that the Council
hearing is de novo. The matter is before the Council in its entirety. There are
different approaches that can be included in the ordinance update. He stated that
the Council stated clearly that they could not support the findings. Reasonable
minds can differ, and he noted that staff presented the Landmarks Commission
Statement of Official Action and that the position of the Commission was not
ignored. He stated that it is unfortunate that the designation was conflated with
the issue of a tree protection ordinance for private property.
Commissioner Green stated that the way the matter was presented to the
Commission was as an issue of saving the tree. She doesn’t see that the Council
discussion was much different than what happened at the Landmarks
Commission. There was a sense by the Commission that the tree needed to be
saved and this was the only tool. She stated that the criteria used to landmark
the tree was very subjective, in her opinion and that she was not convinced the
tree would be designated with the current Commission.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum noted that the criteria used were not subjective
and disagrees with that point. He noted that staff stated the criteria was not
subjective.
Chair Sloan expressed gratitude to the members of the public who expressed
interest in this item.
11-B. Update from the Landmarks Ordinance Update Subcommittee and Staff on
recent activities related to recommendations for the proposed update to the
14
Landmarks Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, including but
not limited to, discussions held, recommendations formulated, input received,
and upcoming Subcommittee meetings.
11:19 PM
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum discussed the subcommittee meetings with staff
and that the focus of the subcommittee has been on the different tiers in the
existing Landmarks Ordinance. He stated a preference for additional research to
be completed prior to a special meeting which would enable another meeting of
the subcommittee. He stated that the Subcommittee would like to identify and
consider other issues to be broadened that are interrelated, including the overall
criteria and related topics. He noted a redline of the Ordinance has been sent to
the Commission by Ken Kutcher, although he hasn’t fully reviewed that
document.
Ruthann Lehrer (Santa Monica Conservancy) stated that the Ordinance has
been discussed since the early 2000’s, various inte rested parties are looking at it,
and that she would like to pull some of the various efforts together. She would
like the opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input sooner
rather than later.
Chair Sloan stated that the subcommittee is interested in receiving input from any
member of the public. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that they would like
to explore different options to include others. Commissioner Genser agreed that
the Subcommittee could meet with members of the community. Stephanie Reich,
Design and Historic Preservation Planner, stated that staff is available to meet
with the subcommittee and is available to meet if the subcommittee would also
like to meet with members of the public. She stated that if there were to be a
special meeting in September or October, she would recommend the 4th or 5th
Monday of the month, provided there are no other City or holiday conflicts.
11-C. Update from the Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee on recent
activities related to enhancing the awareness of, and engagement and
participation in, the City’s historic preservation programs and activities.
11:35 pm
Chair Sloan stated that the Subcommittee is working on a brochure that they
have provided to staff. Staff will be working to have the brochure designed and
printed by the end of the month or soon thereafter. Chair Sloan thanked Ms.
Tanemori for assisting in finding the funds and she and Commissioner Green
acknowledged Commissioner Shari’s effort on the brochure. Chair Sloan also
stated that Commissioner Bach has indicated interest in writing an article for the
Santa Monica Daily Press about the history of the Landmarks Commission.
15
11-D. Update from the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Ordinance
Subcommittee and Staff on the draft Ordinance and to discuss next steps,
including but not limited to, upcoming Subcommittee meetings.
11:38 pm
The following member of the public addressed the Commission Diane Miller
(resident) stated frustration with the lack of progress on the Ordinance for the
District. Ms. Reich stated that the team meets weekly to discuss various work
efforts, including the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District
Ordinance and that work is ongoing.
11-E. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects
involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources.
Nothing to report
11-F. Report from Landmarks Commission representative to the Santa Monica Pier
Corporation (SMPC) on recent SMPC activities and action taken on proposed
projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier.
Nothing to report
11-G. Update from Staff on notable activities affecting any designated Landmarks or
Structures of Merit.
11:42 pm
Mr. Mizokami noted that staff has reviewed and approved items at 2703 Main
Street, 2009 La Mesa, 250 Santa Monica Pier (Seaside on the Pier), 322 Santa
Monica Pier (Starline Tours kiosk), and 511 San Vicente Boulevard (non-
contributor in the San Vicente Historic District) all within the staff resolution.
11-H. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only).
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and
comment is permitted.)
None
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to
upcoming agendas)
None
16
14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the
Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, July 8, 2019; Council Chambers, City
Hall, 1685 Main Street.
15. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Sloan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:44
pm on Monday, June 10, 2019. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The
motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote with all members present.
APPROVE:
Dolores Sloan
Chair
Summary of Findings Referenced in a Failed Motion to Support the District by
Commissioners at the June 10, 2019 Landmarks Commission meeting:
9.56.100(A)(1). Exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political, and architectural history of the City.
This district is a diverse grouping of buildings spanning the first third of the twentieth
century and manifests the patterns of residential development that shaped the Ocean
Park neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.
Constructed in two of the earliest subdivisions in Ocean Park, this district exemplifies
early 20th century residential development in the area, with its variety of architectural
styles and modest scale. All of the properties within this district retain substantial elements
of historic integrity.
The district also exemplifies the economic history of the City, when new transportation
infrastructure in Ocean Park created the framework for residential development. In 1875,
when the Town of Santa Monica was established, Ocean Park was the Lucas Ranch.
Early settlement of Ocean Park was concentrated at the western end close to the beach.
The Lucas family homestead was a grand mansion on what is now Hotchkiss Park at
Fourth and Strand Street. This block of Fourth Street extended all the way to Hill Street,
as Central Avenue (which was later renamed Ocean Park Boule vard) terminated east of
Fourth Street. Until a major roadway improvement was launched by the City in 1917,
Fourth Street was a very long block with sparse development. Then Central
Avenue/Ocean Park Boulevard was opened up through Fourth Street and extend ed to
the beach. The new thoroughfare reaching from Los Angeles through the he art of Ocean
Park to the ocean was a catalyst. Residential development in the Fourth Street Corn er
District began immediately, with most of the homes dating from 1917-1925.
The Period of Significance for the Fourth Street Corner District is 1904 -1936. The 1904
house at 2506 Fourth Street was the first in this then -sparsely settled neighborhood,
followed by a cluster of residential structures built from 1917 to 1925. The last ho use in
the district dates from 1936 and represents a new step forward in residential development
as a multi-family residence in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. It replaced a small 1905
single-family residence that was adjacent to the original 1904 structure on the block.
This group of early residential properties has remained intact to the present day, despite
major infrastructure changes that occurred beginning in the late 19 60s, with
Redevelopment Agency projects intended to remove what was considered blight. Fourth
Street and Ocean Park Boulevard were widened, and the intersection of Fourth Street
and Ocean Park Boulevard was reconfigured to create an underpass for a larger Ocean
Park Boulevard. Despite these major alterations of the urban streetscape, this cluster of
historic properties remained intact and unaltered, manifesting the original residential
character of early Ocean Park.
9.56.100 (A)(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to
a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
The architectural features of the residences within the district are valuable to a study of
the early period of residential architectural history in Ocean Park. A variety of architectural
styles are represented that portray the architectural evolution of the period, and different
residential property types. Moreover, the district has 100% of its properties as district
contributors, and maintains a high level of original architectural integrity. Generally, the
character-defining features of the district include modestly sized, one and two story
residential buildings in a variety of architectural styles popular in the early 20th century.
The earliest residence in the district is a late Victorian/Neoclassical hipped roof cottage
at 2506 Fourth Street, constructed in 1904. This architectural style was prevalent in the
first decade of the 20th century, but have become increasingly rare. Its character-defining
features consist of wood cladding of both shingles and clapboard, a steeply-pitched
hipped roof with flared bracketed eaves, wood sash double -hung windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills, recessed partial-width porch with Corinthian columns;
central dormer with leaded-glass window and decorative scrollwork. The original wrap-
around porch was partially enclosed between 1909 and 1918.
The next architectural phase reveals the emergence of diverse architectural styles:
Craftsman, American Colonial Revival and Mediterranean Revival . This development is
manifested in two clusters, Craftsman and American Colonial Revival in the bungalow
court adjacent to the original 1904 Victorian/Neoclassical cottage on the west side of
Fourth Street, and Craftsman and Mediterranean Revival adjacent to the corner of Fourth
Street and Ocean Park Boulevard.
There are three modest Craftsman bungalows at 317, 319 and 321 Ocean Park
Boulevard (c.1920), and a pair of Craftsman bungalows at 2514 and 2516 Fourth Street
(1921).
Character-defining architectural features of the Craftsman bun galows include: simple
rectangular massing; wood cladding of clapboard or shingles; low-pitched front-facing
gable roof with extended eaves and exposed rafter tails; front porch with gable supp orted
by wood posts; wood sash casement or double-hung windows with plain surrounds and
projecting sills.
The four-unit, two-story structure at 2510 Fourth Street is a unique hybrid reflecting
American Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival and Tudor Revival in a one-of-a-kind
eclectic design. Constructed in 1925, it is valuable for a study of architectural trends in
the 1920s.
The bungalow court also includes two American Colonial Revival bungalows constructed
in 1925 located at 2508 and 2512 Fourth Street Character-defining features are wood
clapboard exterior cladding, divided-light wood sash casement windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills; side gable roof with tight eaves; asymmetrical composition.
Three Mediterranean Revival-style residences located at 2524, 2525 and 2528 Fourth
Street form a distinct subgroup that is worthy of further study. Based upon the stucco
cladding and terra cotta roof tiles, these residences relate to Mission Revival precedents
combined with Craftsman windows and doors. Character -defining architectural features
are: horizontal orientation, smooth plaster exterior wall cladding, flat roof with stepped
parapet, wood sash windows of Craftsman design (tripartite or crossed muntins), shed
roofs with terra cotta barrel tiles supported by wood brackets. Leaded glass windows and
ornate window design are also found.
The Spanish Colonial Revival triplex located at 2518 Fourth Street, was constructed in
1936, is a designated Structure of Merit. This architectural style was the successor to the
earlier adjacent Mediterranean Revival residences Character-defining features include:
asymmetrical composition, complex massing; smooth stucco exterior wall cladding; low
pitched roofs with terra cotta barrel tiles; wood sash double -hung windows with plain
surrounds and projecting sills; curving exterior staircase. In the rear of this triplex is an
accessory two-story structure with ground floor garages and residential units above. It is
stucco clad with a low-pitched side gable roof and clay barrel tiles.
9.56.100(A)(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 Fourth Street Corner District is an established and familiar visual feature of the Ocean
Park neighborhood. This highly intact group of historic residences has a unique location
at the summit of a hill, giving the district a strong visual and physical presence. The
visibility of this intersection was enhanced when reconfigured in the 1960s to create a
vehicular bridge and underpass for Ocean Park Boulevard. Despite these roadway
reconfigurations, the district has maintained its integrity as a cohesive group of historic
residences. As a group of 14 historic residential structures uninterrupted by non-
contributors, located at the crest of a hill, the highly visible integrity and cohesion of the
district is a singular physical characteristic.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The district is a highly unified and cohesive grouping of residentia l structures located in
the Ocean Park neighborhood, at the north side of the intersection Ocean Park Boulevard
and Fourth Street. Containing 100% contributors and no intrusions outside the period of
significance, the district is unified by physical development and architectural quality. The
buildings represent modest examples of a variety of architectural styles popular in the
early 20th century and reflect the development of Ocean Park during such time. The period
of significance begins in 1904 with the first residence in the district at 2506 Fourth Street,
and ends with the 1936 Spanish Colonial Revival triplex at 2518 Fourth Street. Most
structures in the district are Craftsman bungalows and Mediterranean Revival architecture
and were constructed between 1917 and 1925 following the westward extension of
Central Avenue (now Ocean Park Boulevard) toward the beach. Most are one-story and
of modest scale, oriented towards the two streets that frame the district; a second group
is oriented around an open grass courtyard in a bungalow court configuration.
Architectural variety is manifest in the different architectural styles, which po rtray a
chronological sequence from late Victorian to mature Spanish Colonial Revival. The
residences retain a high level of original architectural integrity and therefore the district
retains a sense of time and place.
9.56.100(B)(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.
The Fourth Street Corner District provides a visible representation of early 20th century
residential development in Ocean Park, a period of growth in the neighborhood. The
catalyst for early residential development was new transportation infrastructure, the
extension of Central Avenue (later Ocean Park Boulevard) across Fourth Street to the
west in 1917. The new roadway, Ocean Park Boulevard from Fourth Street to the west,
provided access to the parcels which became the Fourth Street Corner District. Thus the
area is united by a transportation mode and physical development. The period of
significance, 1904-1936 portrays different eras of settlement and growth, from a late
Victorian hipped roof cottage to a highly articulated example of Spanish Colonial Revival
in 1936. The district contains an unusual example of a bungalow court, with homes of
different architectural styles sited around an open grass courtyard.
Subsequent reconfiguration of the street infrastructure of Fourth Street and Ocean Park
Boulevard, due to Redevelopment Agency activity in the late 1960s, did not result in
compromise or loss of the integrity of this district. The streetscape reflects those changes,
but the homes remained intact and cohesive.
9.56.100(B)(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 Fourth Street Corner District is an established and familiar visual feature of the Ocean
Park neighborhood. This highly intact group of historic residences has a unique location
at the summit of a hill, giving the district a strong visual and physical presence. The
visibility of this intersection was enhanced when reconfigured in the 1960s to create a
vehicular bridge and underpass for Ocean Park Boulevard. Despite these roadway
reconfigurations, the district has maintained its integrity as a cohesive group of historic
residences. As a group of 14 historic residential structures uninterrupted by non-
contributors, located at the crest of a hill, the highly visible integrity and cohesion of the
district is a singular physical characteristic.
4th Street Historic District Review Timeframes
November 20, 2018
Historic District Application Submitted and Determined to be Complete
No permits will be issued to any property within the proposed district while application is pending;
however, exceptions for repair work can be granted.
January 17, 2019
Public Information/Community Meeting
Santa Monica Institute
(no later than January 20, 2019)
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
20 Participants
May 13, 2019
Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing
(To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after
the filing of a Complete application)
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
The Landmarks Commission must make a recommendation within 45 days of its initial hearing date or
the application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
(no later than June 28, 2019)
June 10, 2019
Continued Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing
Commission Vote 3-3 resulting in no action/recommendation within the 45 days of its initial hearing
date and therefore the application is deemed DISAPPROVED. This disapproval was appealed to the
City Council.
July 23, 2019
City Council Public Hearing (Appeal)
To be held within 45 days from the date the appeal is filed.
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailing to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary
Historic Districts are approved by Ordinance
NATIONAL REGISTER
BULLETIN
Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places:
survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources
National Park Service
Cultural Resources
National Register, History and Education
How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation
.,
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide
access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust
responsibilities to tribes.
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural
resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education,
and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates
with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.
This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative
agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991,1995,1997. Revised for Internet 1995.
Cover
(Top Left) Criterion B - Frederick Douglass Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877-
1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a
prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr.)
(Top Right) Criterion D - Francis Canyon Ruin, Blanco vicinity, Rio Arriba
County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms
arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-1742 for protection
against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has information potential related to Na-
vajo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures. (Jon Samuelson)
(Bottom Left) Criterion C - Bridge in Cherrytree Township, Venago County,
Pennsylvania. Built in 1882, this Pratt through truss bridge is significant for engi-
neering as a well preserved example of a type of bridge frequently used in northwestern
Pennsylvania in the late 19th century. (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation)
(Bottom Right) Criterion A - Main Street/Market Square Historic District,
Houston, Harris County, Texas. Until well into the 20th century this district marked
the bounds of public and business life in Houston. Constructed between the 1870s and
1920s, the district includes Houston's municipal and county buildings, and served as
the city's wholesale, retail, and financial center. (Paul Hester)
PREFACE
Preserving historic properties as
important reflections of our American
heritage became a national policy
through passage of the Antiquities
Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of
1935, and the National Historic Pres-
ervation Act of 1966, as amended.
The Historic Sites Act authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to identify
and recognize properties of national
significance (National Historic Land-
marks) in United States history and
archeology. The National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 authorized
the Secretary to expand this recogni-
tion to properties of local and State
significance in American history, ar-
chitecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture, and worthy of preserva-
tion. The National Register of His-
toric Places is the official list of these
recognized properties, and is main-
tained and expanded by the National
Park Service on behalf of the Secretary
of the Interior.1
The National Register of Historic
Places documents the appearance and
importance of districts, sites, build-
ings, structures, and objects signifi-
cant in our prehistory and history.
These properties represent the major
patterns of our shared local, State,
and national experience. To guide the
selection of properties included in the
National Register, the National Park
Service has developed the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation.
These criteria are standards by which
every property that is nominated to
the National Register is judged. In
addition, the National Park Service
has developed criteria for the recogni-
tion of nationally significant proper-
ties, which are designated National
Historic Landmarks and prehistoric
and historic units of the National Park
System. Both these sets of criteria
were developed to be consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Stan-
dards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation, which are uni-
form, national standards for preserva-
tion activities.2
This publication explains how the
National Park Service applies these
criteria in evaluating the wide range
of properties that may be significant
in local, State, and national history.
It should be used by anyone who
must decide if a particular property
qualifies for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Listing properties in the National
Register is an important step in a na-
tionwide preservation process. The
responsibility for the identification,
initial evaluation, nomination, and
treatment of historic resources lies
with private individuals, State historic
preservation offices, and Federal pres-
ervation offices, local governments,
and Indian tribes. The final evalua-
tion and listing of properties in the
National Register is the responsibility
of the Keeper of the National Register.
This bulletin was prepared by staff
of the National Register Branch, Inter-
agency Resources Division, National
Park Service, with the assistance of the
History Division. It was originally is-
sued in draft form in 1982. The draft
was revised into final form by Patrick
W. Andrus, Historian, National Regis-
ter, and edited by Rebecca H.
Shrimpton, Consulting Historian.
Beth L. Savage, National Register
and Sarah Dillard Pope, National Reg-
ister, NCSHPO coordinated the latest
revision of this bulletin. Antionette J.
Lee, Tanya Gossett, and Kira Badamo
coordinated earlier revisions.
'Properties listed in the National Register receive limited Federal protection and certain benefits. For more information concerning the effects of
listing, and how the National Register may be used by the general public and Certified Local Governments, as well as by local, State, and Federal
agencies, and for copies of National Register Bulletins, contact the National Park Service, National Register, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington,
D.C., 20240. Information may also be obtained by visiting the National Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr or by contacting any of the historic
preservation offices in the States and territories.
2The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation are found in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190
(Thursday, September 29,1983). A copy can be obtained by writing the National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services (at the address above).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface i
I. Introduction 1
II. National Register Criteria for Evaluation 2
III. How to Use this Bulletin to Evaluate a Property 3
IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties 4
Building 4
Structure 4
Object 5
Site 5
District 5
Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features 5
Significance 5
Types of Features 5
Geographical Boundaries 6
Discontiguous Districts 6
V. How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context 7
Understanding Historic Contexts 7
How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context 7
Properties Significant Within More Than on Historic Context 9
Comparing Related Properties 9
Local, State, and National Historic Contexts 9
VI. How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property 11
Introduction 11
Criterion A: Event 12
Understanding Criterion A 12
Applying Criterion A 12
Types of Events 12
Association of the Property with the Events 12
Significance of the Association 12
Traditional Cultural Values 13
Criterion B: Person 14
Understanding Criterion B 14
Applying Criterion B 15
Significance of the Individual 15
Association with the Property 15
Comparison to Related Properties 15
Association with Groups 15
Association with Living Persons 16
Association with Architects/Artisans 16
Native American Sites 16
Criterion C: Design/Construction 17
Understanding Criterion C • 17
Applying Criterion C 18
Distinctive Characteristics of Type, Period, and Method of Construction 18
Historic Adaptation of the Original Property 19
Works of a Master .....20
Properties Possessing High Artistic Values 20
Criterion D: Information Potential 21
Understanding Criterion D 21
Applying Criterion D 21
Archeological Sites 21
Buildings, Structures, and Objects 21
Association with Human Activity 22
Establishing a Historic Context 22
Developing Research Questions 22
Establishing the Presence of Adequate Data 23
Integrity 23
Partly Excavated or Disturbed Properties 23
Completely Excavated Sites 24
VII. How to Apply the Criteria Considerations 25
Introduction 25
Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties 26
Understanding Criteria Consideration A 26
Applying Criteria Consideration A 26
Eligibility for Historic Events , 26
Eligibility for Historic Persons 27
Eligibility for Architectural or Artistic Distinction 28
Eligibility for Information Potential 28
Ability to Reflect Historic Associations 28
Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties 29
Understanding Criteria Consideration B 29
Applying Criteria Consideration B 29
Eligibility for Architectural Value 29
Eligibility for Historic Associations 30
Setting and Environment 30
Association Dependent on the Site 30
Properties Designed to Be Moved 31
Artificially Created Groupings 31
Portions of Properties 31
Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves 32
Understanding Criteria Consideration C 32
Applying Criteria Consideration C 32
Persons of Outstanding Importance 32
Last Surviving Property Associated with a Person 32
Eligibility for Other Associations 33
Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries 34
Understanding Criteria Consideration D 34
Applying Criteria Consideration D 34
Persons of Transcendent Importance 34
Eligibility on the Basis of Age 35
Eligibility for Design 35
Eligibility for Association with Events 35
Eligibility for Information Potential 35
Integrity 36
National Cemeteries 36
Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties 37
Understanding Criteria Consideration E 37
Applying Criteria Consideration E 37
Accuracy of the Reconstruction 37
Suitable Environment 37
Restoration Master Plans 38
iii
Last Surviving Property of a Type 38
Reconstructions Older than Fifty Years 38
Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties 39
Understanding Criteria Consideration F 39
Applying Criteria Consideration F 39
Eligibility for Design 39
Eligibility for Age, Tradition, or Symbolic Value 40
Ineligibility as the Last Representative of an Event or Person 40
Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years 41
Understanding Criteria Consideration G 41
Applying Criteria Consideration G 42
Eligibility for Exceptional Importance 42
Historical Perspective 42
National Park Service Rustic Architecture 42
Veterans Administration Hospitals 42
Comparison with Related Properties 42
World War II Properties 42
Eligibility for Information Potential 43
Historic Districts 43
Properties Over Fifty Years in Age, Under Fifty Years in Significance 43
Requirement to Meet the Criteria, Regardless of Age 43
VIII. How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property 44
Introduction 44
Understanding the Aspects of Integrity 44
Location 44
Design 44
Setting 44
Materials 45
Workmanship 45
Feeling 45
Association 45
Assessing Integrity in Properties 45
Defining the Essential Physical Features 46
Visibility of the Physical Features 46
Comparing Similar Properties 47
Determining the Relevant Aspects of Integrity 48
IX. Summary of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation 50
X. Glossary 53
XL List of National Register Bulletins 54
IV
I. INTRODUCTION
The National Register is the
nation's inventory of historic places
and the national repository of docu-
mentation on the variety of historic
property types, significance, abun-
dance, condition, ownership, needs,
and other information. It is the begin-
ning of a national census of historic
properties. The National Register Cri-
teria for Evaluation define the scope
of the National Register of Historic
Places; they identify the range of re-
sources and kinds of significance that
will qualify properties for listing in
the National Register. The Criteria
are written broadly to recognize the
wide variety of historic properties as-
sociated with our prehistory and his-
tory.
Decisions concerning the signifi-
cance, historic integrity, documenta-
tion, and treatment of properties can
be made reliably only when the re-
source is evaluated within its historic
context. The historic context serves as
the framework within which the Na-
tional Register Criteria are applied to
specific properties or property types.
(See Part V for a brief discussion of
historic contexts. Detailed guidance
for developing and applying historic
contexts is contained in National Reg-
ister Bulletin: How to Complete the Na-
tional Register Registration Form and
National Register Bulletin: How to Com-
plete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form )
The guidelines provided here are
intended to help you understand the
National Park Service's use of the Cri-
teria for Evaluation, historic contexts,
integrity, and Criteria Considerations,
and how they apply to properties un-
der consideration for listing in the
National Register. Examples are pro-
vided throughout, illustrating specific
circumstances in which properties are
and are not eligible for the National
Register. This bulletin should be used
by anyone who is:
•Preparing to nominate a property
to the National Register,
• Seeking a determination of a
property's eligibility,
• Evaluating the comparable sig-
nificance of a property to those
listed in the National Register, or
• Expecting to nominate a property
as a National Historic Landmark
in addition to nominating it to
the National Register.
This bulletin also contains a sum-
mary of the National Historic Land-
marks Criteria for Evaluation (see
Part IX). National Historic Land-
marks are those districts, sites, build-
ings, structures, and objects desig-
nated by the Secretary of the Interior
as possessing national significance in
American history, architecture, arche-
ology, engineering, and culture. Al-
though National Register documenta-
tion includes a recommendation
about whether a property is signifi-
cant at the local, State, or national
level, the only official designation of
national significance is as a result of
National Historic Landmark designa-
tion by the Secretary of the Interior,
National Monument designation by
the President of the United States, or
establishment as a unit of the National
Park System by Congress. These
properties are automatically listed in
the National Register.
II. THE NATIONAL
REGISTER CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION:3
The quality of significance in
American history, architecture, arche-
ology, engineering, and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess in-
tegrity of location, design, setting, ma-
terials, workmanship, feeling, and as-
sociation, and:
A. That are associated with events that
have made a significant contribu-
tion to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past; or
C. That 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. That have yielded, or may be likely
to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATIONS:
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces,
or graves of historical figures, proper-
ties owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings, properties primarily
commemorative in nature, and prop-
erties that have achieved significance
within the past 50 years shall not be
considered eligible for the National
Register. However, such properties
will qualify if they are integral parts of
districts that do meet the criteria or if
they fall within the following catego-
ries:
a. A religious property deriving
primary significance from architec-
tural or artistic distinction or
historical importance; or
b. A building or structure removed
from its original location but which
is significant primarily for architec-
tural value, or which is the surviv-
ing structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or
event; or
c. A birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance
if there is no appropriate site or
building directly associated with
his or her productive life; or
d. A cemetery which derives its
primary significance from graves
of persons of transcendent impor-
tance, from age, from distinctive
design features, or from association
with historic events; or
e. A reconstructed building when
accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a
restoration master plan, and when
no other building or structure with
the same association has survived;
or
f. A property primarily commemora-
tive in intent if design, age, tradi-
tion, or symbolic value has in-
vested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
g. A property achieving significance
within the past 50 years if it is of
exceptional importance.
3The Criteria for Evaluation are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60, and are reprinted here in full.
III. HOW TO USE THIS
BULLETIN TO EVALUATE A
PROPERTY
For a property to qualify for the
National Register it must meet one of
the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation by:
• Being associated with an impor-
tant historic context and
• Retaining historic integrity of
those features necessary to con-
vey its significance.
Information about the property
based on physical examination and
documentary research is necessary to
evaluate a property's eligibility for the
National Register. Evaluation of a
property is most efficiently made
when following this sequence:
1. Categorize the property (Part IV).
A property must be classified as
a district, site, building, structure,
or object for inclusion in the
National Register.
2. Determine which prehistoric or
historic context(s) the property
represents (Part V). A property
must possess significance in
American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or
culture when evaluated within
the historic context of a relevant
geographic area.
3. Determine whether the property
is significant under the National
Register Criteria (Part VI). This
is done by identifying the links to
important events or persons,
design or construction features,
or information potential that
make the property important.
4. Determine if the property repre-
sents a type usually excluded from
the National Register (Part VII).
If so, determine if it meets any of
the Criteria Considerations.
5. Determine whether the property
retains integrity (Part VIII).
Evaluate the aspects of location,
design, setting, workmanship, ma-
terials, feeling, and association
that the property must retain to
convey its historic significance.
If, after completing these steps, the
property appears to qualify for the Na-
tional Register, the next step is to pre-
pare a written nomination. (Refer to
National Register Bulletin: How to
Complete the National Register Registra-
tion Form.)
IV. HOW TO DEFINE
CATEGORIES OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
The National Register of Historic
Places includes significant properties,
classified as buildings, sites, districts,
structures, or objects. It is not used to
list intangible values, except in so far
as they are associated with or re-
flected by historic properties. The Na-
tional Register does not list cultural
events, or skilled or talented individu-
als, as is done in some countries.
Rather, the National Register is ori-
ented to recognizing physically con-
crete properties that are relatively
fixed in location.
For purposes of National Register
nominations, small groups of proper-
ties are listed under a single category,
using the primary resource. For ex-
ample, a city hall and fountain would
be categorized by the city hall (build-
ing), a farmhouse with two outbuild-
ings would be categorized by the
farmhouse (building), and a city park
with a gazebo would be categorized
by the park (site). Properties with
large acreage or a number of re-
sources are usually considered dis-
tricts. Common sense and reason
should dictate the selection of catego-
ries.
BUILDING
A building, such as a house, barn,
church, hotel, or similar construc-
tion, is created principally to shelter
any form of human activity. "Build-
ing" may also be used to refer to a
historically and functionally related
unit, such as a courthouse and jail or
a house and barn.
Buildings eligible for the National
Register must include all of their basic
structural elements. Parts of build-
ings, such as interiors, facades, or
wings, are not eligible independent of
the rest of the existing building. The
whole building must be considered,
and its significant features must be
identified.
If a building has lost any of its basic
structural elements, it is usually con-
sidered a "ruin" and is categorized as
a site.
Examples of buildings include:
administration building
carriage house
church
city or town hall
courthouse
detached kitchen, barn, and privy
dormitory
fort
garage
hotel
house
library
mill building
office building
post office
school
social hall
shed
stable
store
theater
train station
STRUCTURE
The term "structure" is used to
distinguish from buildings those
functional constructions made usu-
ally for purposes other than creating
human shelter.
Structures nominated to the
National Register must include all of
the extant basic structural elements.
Parts of structures can not be consid-
ered eligible if the whole structure
remains. For example, a truss bridge
is composed of the metal or wooden
truss, the abutments, and supporting
piers, all of which, if extant, must be
included when considering the
property for eligibility.
If a structure has lost its historic
configuration or pattern of organiza-
tion through deterioration or demoli-
tion, it is usually considered a "ruin"
and is categorized as a site.
Examples of structures include:
aircraft
apiary
automobile
bandstand
boats and ships
bridge
cairn
canal
carousel
corner ib
dam
earthwork
fence
gazebo
grain elevator
highway
irrigation system
kiln
lighthouse
railroad grade
silo
trolley car
tunnel
windmill
OBJECT
The term "object" is used to
distinguish from buildings and
structures those constructions that
are primarily artistic in nature or are
relatively small in scale and simply
constructed. Although it may be, by
nature or design, movable, an object
is associated with a specific setting
or environment.
Small objects not designed for a
specific location are normally not
eligible. Such works include trans-
portable sculpture, furniture, and
other decorative arts that, unlike a
fixed outdoor sculpture, do not
possess association with a specific
place.
Objects should be in a setting
appropriate to their significant
historic use, roles, or character.
Objects relocated to a museum are
inappropriate for listing in the Na-
tional Register.
Examples of objects include:
boundary marker
fountain
milepost
monument
scupture
statuary
SITE
A site is the location of a signifi-
cant event, a prehistoric or historic
occupation or activity, or a building
or structure, whether standing,
ruined, or vanished, where the
location itself possesses historic,
cultural, or archeological value
regardless of the value of any exist-
ing structure.
A site can possess associative
significance or information potential
or both, and can be significant under
any or all of the four criteria. A site
need not be marked by physical
remains if it is the location of a
prehistoric or historic event or pattern
of events and if no buildings, struc-
tures, or objects marked it at the time
of the events. However, when the
location of a prehistoric or historic
event cannot be conclusively deter-
mined because no other cultural
materials were present or survive,
documentation must be carefully
evaluated to determine whether the
traditionally recognized or identified
site is accurate.
A site may be a natural landmark
strongly associated with significant
prehistoric or historic events or
patterns of events, if the significance
of the natural feature is well docu-
mented through scholarly research.
Generally, though, the National
Register excludes from the definition
of "site" natural waterways or bodies
of water that served as determinants
in the location of communities or
were significant in the locality's
subsequent economic development.
While they may have been "avenues
of exploration," the features most
appropriate to document this signifi-
cance are the properties built in
association with the waterways.
Examples of sites include:
battlefield
campsite
cemeteries significant for information
potential or historic association
ceremonial site
designed landscape
habitation site
natural feature (such as a rock formation)
having cultural significance
pet ro glyph
rock carving
rock shelter
ruins of a building or structure
shipwreck
trail
village site
DISTRICT
A district possesses a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity
of sites, buildings, structures, or
objects united historically or aes-
thetically by plan or physical devel-
opment.
CONCENTRATION, LINKAGE, &
CONTINUITY OF FEATURES
A district derives its importance
from being a unified entity, even
though it is often composed of a wide
variety of resources. The identity of a
district results from the interrelation-
ship of its resources, which can
convey a visual sense of the overall
historic environment or be an ar-
rangement of historically or function-
ally related properties. For example, a
district can reflect one principal
activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it
can encompass several interrelated
activities, such as an area that in-
cludes industrial, residential, or
commercial buildings, sites, struc-
tures, or objects. A district can also be
a grouping of archeological sites
related primarily by their common
components; these types of districts
often will not visually represent a
specific historic environment.
SIGNIFICANCE
A district must be significant, as
well as being an identifiable entity. It
must be important for historical,
architectural, archeological, engineer-
ing, or cultural values. Therefore,
districts that are significant will
usually meet the last portion of
Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion
B, other portions of Criterion C, or
Criterion D.
TYPES OF FEATURES
A district can comprise both
features that lack individual distinc-
tion and individually distinctive
features that serve as focal points. It
may even be considered eligible if all
of the components lack individual
distinction, provided that the group-
ing achieves significance as a whole
within its historic context. In either
case, the majority of the components
that add to the district's historic
character, even if they are individu-
ally undistinguished, must possess
integrity, as must the district as a
whole.
A district can contain buildings,
structures, sites, objects, or open
spaces that do not contribute to the
significance of the district. The
number of noncontributing properties
a district can contain yet still convey
its sense of time and place and
historical development depends on
how these properties affect the
district's integrity. In archeological
districts, the primary factor to be
considered is the effect of any distur-
bances on the information potential of
the district as a whole.
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES
A district must be a definable
geographic area that can be distin-
guished from surrounding properties
by changes such as density, scale,
type, age, style of sites, buildings,
structures, and objects, or by docu-
mented differences in patterns of
historic development or associations.
It is seldom defined, however, by the
limits of current parcels of ownership,
management, or planning boundaries.
The boundaries must be based upon a
shared relationship among the
properties constituting the district.
DISCONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS
A district is usually a single geo-
graphic area of contiguous historic
properties; however, a district can
also be composed of two or more
definable significant areas separated
by nonsignificant areas. A
discontiguous district is most appro-
priate where:
• Elements are spatially discrete;
• Space between the elements is
not related to the significance of
the district; and
• Visual continuity is not a factor
in the significance.
In addition, a canal can be treated
as a discontiguous district when the
system consists of man-made sections
of canal interspersed with sections of
river navigation. For scattered
archeological properties, a
discontiguous district is appropriate
when the deposits are related to each
other through cultural affiliation,
period of use, or site type.
It is not appropriate to use the
discontiguous district format to
include an isolated resource or small
group of resources which were once
connected to the district, but have
since been separated either through
demolition or new construction. For
example, do not use the discontiguous
district format to nominate individual
buildings of a downtown commerical
district that have become isolated
through demolition.
Examples of districts include:
business districts
canal systems
groups of habitation sites
college campuses
estates and farms with large acreage/
numerous properties
industrial complexes
irrigation systems
residential areas
rural villages
transportation networks
rural historic districts
Ordeman-Shaw Historic District, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama.
Historic districts derive their identity from the interrationship of their resources. Part
of the defining characteristics of this 19th century residential district in Montgomery,
Alabama, is found in the rhythmic pattern of the rows of decorative porches. (Frank L.
Thiermonge, III)
V. HOW TO EVALUATE A
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS
HISTORIC CONTEXT
UNDERSTANDING
HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
To qualify for the National Regis-
ter, a property must be significant;
that is, it must represent a significant
part of the history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or culture of
an area, and it must have the charac-
teristics that make it a good represen-
tative of properties associated with
that aspect of the past. This section
explains how to evaluate a property
within its historic context.4
The significance of a historic
property can be judged and explained
only when it is evaluated within its
historic context. Historic contexts are
those patterns or trends in history by
which a specific occurrence, property,
or site is understood and its meaning
(and ultimately its significance)
within history or prehistory is made
clear. Historians, architectural
historians, folklorists, archeologists,
and anthropologists use different
words to describe this phenomena
such as trend, pattern, theme, or
cultural affiliation, but ultimately the
concept is the same.
The concept of historic context is
not a new one; it has been fundamen-
tal to the study of history since the
18th century and, arguably, earlier
than that. Its core premise is that
resources, properties, or happenings
in history do not occur in a vacuum
but rather are part of larger trends or
patterns.
In order to decide whether a
property is significant within its
historic context, the following five
things must be determined:
• The facet of prehistory or history
of the local area, State, or the na-
tion that the property represents;
• Whether that facet of prehistory
or history is significant;
• Whether it is a type of property
that has relevance and impor-
tance in illustrating the historic
context;
• How the property illustrates that
history; and finally
• Whether the property possesses
the physical features necessary to
convey the aspect of prehistory
or history with which it is associ-
ated.
These five steps are discussed in
detail below. If the property being
evaluated does represent an impor-
tant aspect of the area's history or
prehistory and possesses the requisite
quality of integrity, then it qualifies
for the National Register.
HOW TO EVALUATE
A PROPERTY
WITHIN ITS
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Identify what the property repre-
sents: the theme(s), geographical
limits, and chronological period that
provide a perspective from which to
evaluate the property's significance.
Historic contexts are historical
patterns that can be identified through
consideration of the history of the
property and the history of the sur-
rounding area. Historic contexts may
have already been defined in your area
by the State historic preservation office,
Federal agencies, or local governments.
In accordance with the National Regis-
ter Criteria, the historic context may
relate to one of the following:
• An event, a series of events or ac-
tivities, or patterns of an area's de-
velopment (Criterion A);
• Association with the life of an im-
portant person (Criterion B);
• A building form, architectural style,
engineering technique, or artistic
values, based on a stage of physical
development, or the use of a mate-
rial or method of construction that
shaped the historic identity of an
area (Criterion C); or
• A research topic (Criterion D).
4 For a complete discussion of historic contexts, see National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places
Registration Forms.
Determine how the theme of the
context is significant in the history of
the local area, the State, or the
nation.
A theme is a means of organizing
properties into coherent patterns
based on elements such as environ-
ment, social/ethnic groups, transpor-
tation networks, technology, or
political developments that have
influenced the development of an area
during one or more periods of prehis-
tory or history. A theme is considered
significant if it can be demonstrated,
through scholarly research, to be
important in American history. Many
significant themes can be found in the
following list of Areas of Significance
used by the National Register.
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Agriculture
Architecture
Archeology
Prehistoric
Historic—Aboriginal
Historic—Non-Aboriginal
Art
Commerce
Communications
Community Planning and Development
Conservation
Economics
Education
Engineering
Entertainment/Recreation
Ethnic Heritage
Asian
Black
European
Hispanic
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other
Exploration/Settlement
Health/Medicine
Industry
Invention
Landscape Architecture
Law
Literature
Maritime History
Military
Performing Arts
Philosophy
Politics/Government
Religion
Science
Social History
Transportation
Other
Determine what the property type
is and whether it is important in
illustrating the historic context.
A context may be represented by a
variety of important property types.
For example, the context of "Civil
War Military Activity in Northern
Virginia" might be represented by
such properties as: a group of mid-
19th century fortification structures;
an open field where a battle occurred;
a knoll from which a general directed
troop movements; a sunken transport
ship; the residences or public build-
ings that served as company head-
quarters; a railroad bridge that served
as a focal point for a battle; and
earthworks exhibiting particular
construction techniques.
Because a historic context for a
community can be based on a distinct
period of development, it might
include numerous property types.
For example, the context "Era of
Industrialization in Grand Bay,
Michigan, 1875 -1900" could be
represented by important property
types as diverse as sawmills, paper
mill sites, salt refining plants, flour
mills, grain elevators, furniture
factories, workers housing, commer-
cial buildings, social halls, schools,
churches, and transportation facilities.
A historic context can also be based
on a single important type of prop-
erty. The context "Development of
County Government in Georgia,
1777 -1861" might be represented
solely by courthouses. Similarly,
"Bridge Construction in Pittsburgh,
1870 - 1920" would probably only
have one property type.
Determine how the property
represents the context through
specific historic associations, archi-
tectural or engineering values, or
information potential (the Criteria
for Evaluation).
For example, the context of county
government expansion is represented
under Criterion A by historic districts
or buildings that reflect population
growth, development patterns, the
role of government in that society,
and political events in the history oi
the State, as well as the impact of
county government on the physical
development of county seats. Under
Criterion C, the context is represented
by properties whose architectural
treatments reflect their governmental
functions, both practically and
symbolically. (See Part VI: How to
Identify the Type of Significance of a
Property.)
Determine what physical features
the property must possess in order
for it to reflect the significance of the
historic context.
These physical features can be
determined after identifying the
following:
• Which types of properties are as-
sociated with the historic context,
• The ways in which properties can
represent the theme, and
• The applicable aspects of integ-
rity.
Properties that have the defined
characteristics are eligible for listing.
(See Part VIII: How to Evaluate the
Integrity of a Property.)
PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANT
WITHIN MORE THAN ONE
HISTORIC CONTEXT
A specific property can be signifi-
cant within one or more historic
contexts, and, if possible, all of these
should be identified. For example, a
public building constructed in the
1830s that is related to the historic
context of Civil War campaigns in the
area might also be related to the
theme of political developments in the
community during the 1880s. A
property is only required, however, to
be documented as significant in one
context.
COMPARING RELATED
PROPERTIES
Properties listed in the National
Register must possess significance
when evaluated in the perspective of
their historic context. Once the
historic context is established and the
property type is determined, it is not
necessary to evaluate the property in
question against other properties if:
• It is the sole example of a prop-
erty type that is important in il-
lustrating the historic context or
• It clearly possesses the defined
characteristics required to
strongly represent the context.
If these two conditions do not
apply, then the property will have to
be evaluated against other examples
of the property type to determine its
eligibility. The geographic level
(local, State, or national) at which this
evaluation is made is the same as the
level of the historic context. (See Part
V: How to Evaluate a Property Within
Its Historic Context.)
LOCAL, STATE,
AND NATIONAL
HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Historic contexts are found at a
variety of geographical levels or
scales. The geographic scale selected
may relate to a pattern of historical
development, a political division, or a
cultural area. Regardless of the scale,
the historic context establishes the
framework from which decisions
about the significance of related
properties can be made.
LOCAL HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
A local historic context represents
an aspect of the history of a town,
city, county, cultural area, or region,
or any portions thereof. It is defined
by the importance of the property, not
necessarily the physical location of the
property. For instance, if a property
is of a type found throughout a State,
or its boundaries extend over two
States, but its importance relates only
to a particular county, the property
would be considered of local signifi-
cance.
The level of context of archeologi-
cal sites significant for their informa-
tion potential depends on the scope of
the applicable research design. For
example, a Late Mississippian village
site may yield information in a
research design concerning one
settlement system on a regional scale,
while in another research design it
may reveal information of local
importance concerning a single
group's stone tool manufacturing
techniques or house forms. It is a
question of how the available infor-
mation potential is likely to be used.
STATE HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Properties are evaluated in a State
context when they represent an aspect
of the history of the State as a whole
(or American Samoa, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands).
These properties do not necessarily
have to belong to property types
found throughout the entire State:
they can be located in only a portion
of the State's present political bound-
ary. It is the property's historic
context that must be important
statewide. For example, the "cotton
belt" extends through only a portion
of Georgia, yet its historical develop-
ment in the antebellum period af-
fected the entire State. These State
historic contexts may have associated
properties that are statewide or
locally significant representations. A
cotton gin in a small town might be a
locally significant representation of
this context, while one of the largest
cotton producing plantations might
be of State significance.
A property whose historic associa-
tions or information potential appears
to extend beyond a single local area
might be significant at the State level.
A property can be significant to more
than one community or local area,
however, without having achieved
State significance.
A property that overlaps several
State boundaries can possibly be
significant to the State or local history
of each of the States. Such a property
is not necessarily of national signifi-
cance, however, nor is it necessarily
significant to all of the States in which
it is located.
Prehistoric sites are not often
considered to have "State" signifi-
cance, per se, largely because States
are relatively recent political entities
and usually do not correspond closely
to Native American political territo-
ries or cultural areas. Numerous sites,
however, may be of significance to a
large region that might geographi-
cally encompass parts of one, or
usually several, States. Prehistoric
resources that might be of State
significance include regional sites that
provide a diagnostic assemblage of
artifacts for a particular cultural
group or time period or that provide
chronological control (specific dates
or relative order in time) for a series
of cultural groups.
NATIONAL HISTORIC
CONTEXTS
Properties are evaluated in a
national context when they represent
an aspect of the history of the United
States and its territories as a whole.
These national historic contexts may
have associated properties that are
locally or statewide significant
representations, as well as those of
national significance.
Properties designated as nationally
significant and listed in the National
Register are the prehistoric and
historic units of the National Park
System and those properties that have
been designated National Historic
Landmarks. The National Historic
Landmark criteria are the standards
for nationally significant properties;
they are found in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 36, Part 65 and are
summarized in this bulletin in Part IX:
Summary of National Historic Land-
marks Criteria for Evaluation.
A property with national signifi-
cance helps us understand the history
of the nation by illustrating the
nationwide impact of events or
persons associated with the property,
its architectural type or style, or
information potential. It must be of
exceptional value in representing or
illustrating an important theme in the
history of the nation.
Nationally significant properties
do not necessarily have to belong to a
property type found throughout the
entire country: they can be located in
only a portion of the present political
boundaries. It is their historic context
that must be important nationwide.
For example, the American Civil War
was fought in only a portion of the
United States, yet its impact was
nationwide. The site of a small
military skirmish might be a locally
significant representation of this
national context, while the capture of
the State's largest city might be a
statewide significant representation
of the national context.
When evaluating properties at the
national level for designation as a
National Historic Landmark, please
refer to the National Historic Land-
marks outline, History and Prehistory
in the National Park System and the
National Historic Landmarks Program
1987. (For more information about
the National Historic Landmarks
program, please write to the Depart-
ment of the Interior, National Park
Service, National Historic Land-
marks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400,
Washington, DC 20240.)
10
VI. HOW TO IDENTIFY THE
TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A
PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION
When evaluated within its historic
context, a property must be shown to
be significant for one or more of the four
Criteria for Evaluation - A, B, C, or D
(listed earlier in Part U). The Criteria
describe how properties are signifi-
cant for their association with impor-
tant events or persons, for their
importance in design or construction,
or for their information potential.
The basis for judging a property's
significance and, ultimately, its
eligibility under the Criteria is historic
context. The use of historic context
allows a property to be properly
evaluated in a nearly infinite number
of capacities. For instance, Criterion
C: Design/Construction can accom-
modate properties representing
construction types that are unusual or
widely practiced, that are innovative
or traditional, that are "high style" or
vernacular, that are the work of a
famous architect or an unknown
master craftsman. The key to determin-
ing whether the characteristics or associa-
tions of a particular property are signifi-
cant is to consider the property within its
historic context.
After identifying the relevant
historic context(s) with which the
property is associated, the four
Criteria are applied to the property.
Within the scope of the historic
context, the National Register Criteria
define the kind of significance that the
properties represent.
For example, within the context of
"19th Century Gunpowder Produc-
tion in the Brandywine Valley,"
Criterion A would apply to those
properties associated with important
events in the founding and develop-
ment of the industry. Criterion B
would apply to those properties
associated with persons who are
significant in the founding of the
industry or associated with important
inventions related to gunpowder
manufacturing. Criterion C would
apply to those buildings, structures,
or objects whose architectural form or
style reflect important design qualities
integral to the industry. And Crite-
rion D would apply to properties that
can convey information important in
our understanding of this industrial
process. If a property qualifies under
more than one of the Criteria, its
significance under each should be
considered, if possible, in order to
identify all aspects of its historical
value.
NATIONAL REGISTER
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION*
The National Register Criteria
recognize different types of values
embodied in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects. These values
fall into the following categories:
Associative value (Criteria A and
B): Properties significant for their
association or linkage to events
(Criterion A) or persons (Criterion B)
important in the past.
Design or Construction value
(Criterion C): Properties significant
as representatives of the manmade
expression of culture or technology.
Information value (Criterion D):
Properties significant for their ability
to yield important information about
prehistory or history.
""For a complete listing of the Criteria for
Evaluation, refer to Part II oi this bulletin.
11
CRITERION A: EVENT
Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION A:
EVENT
To be considered for listing under
Criterion A, a property must be
associated with one or more events
important in the defined historic
context. Criterion A recognizes
properties associated with single
events, such as the founding of a
town, or with a pattern of events,
repeated activities, or historic trends,
such as the gradual rise of a port city's
prominence in trade and commerce.
The event or trends, however, must
clearly be important within the
associated context: settlement, in the
case of the town, or development of a
maritime economy, in the case of the
port city. Moreover, the property
must have an important association
with the event or historic trends, and
it must retain historic integrity. (See
Part V: How to Evaluate a Property
Within its Historic Context.)
Several steps are involved in
determining whether a property is
significant for its associative values:
• Determine the nature and origin
of the property,
• Identify the historic context with
which it is associated, and
• Evaluate the property's history to
determine whether it is associ-
ated with the historic context in
any important way.
APPLYING
CRITERION A:
EVENT
TYPES OF EVENTS
A property can be associated with
either (or both) of two types of events:
• A specific event marking an im-
portant moment in American pre-
history or history and
• A pattern of events or a historic
trend that made a significant con-
tribution to the development of a
community, a State, or the nation.
Refer to the sidebar on the right for
a list of specific examples.
ASSOCIATION OF THE
PROPERTY WITH THE
EVENTS
The property you are evaluating
must be documented, through ac-
cepted means of historical or archeo-
logical research (including oral
history), to have existed at the time of
the event or pattern of events and to
have been associated with those
events. A property is not eligible if its
associations are speculative. For
archeological sites, well reasoned
inferences drawn from data recovered
at the site can be used to establish the
association between the site and the
events.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
ASSOCIATION
Mere association with historic
events or trends is not enough, in and
of itself, to qualify under Criterion A:
the property's specific association
must be considered important as well.
For example, a building historically in
commercial use must be shown to
have been significant in commercial
history.
EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS
Properties associated with specific events:
• The site of a battle.
• The building in which an important
invention was developed.
• A factory district where a significant
strike occurred.
• An archeological site at which a ma-
jor new aspect of prehistory was dis-
covered, such as the first evidence of
man and extinct Pleistocene animals
being contemporaneous.
• A site where an important facet of
European exploration occurred.
Properties associated with a pattern of
events:
• A trail associated with western mi-
gration.
• A railroad station that served as the
focus of a community's transporta-
tion system and commerce.
• A mill district reflecting the impor-
tance of textile manufacturing dur-
ing a given period.
• A building used by an important lo-
cal social organization.
• A site where prehistoric Native
Americans annually gathered for
seasonally available resources and
for social interaction.
• A downtown district representing a
town's growth as the commercial fo-
cus of the surrounding agricultural
area.
12
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL
VALUES
Traditional cultural significance is
derived from the role a property plays
in a community's historically rooted
beliefs, customs, and practices.
Properties may have significance
under Criterion A if they are associ-
ated with events, or series of events,
significant to the cultural traditions of
a community.5
Eligible
• A hilltop associated in oral his-
torical accounts with the
founding of an Indian tribe or
society is eligible.
• A rural community can be eli-
gible whose organization,
buildings, or patterns of
land use reflect the cultural
traditions valued by its long-
term residents.
• An urban neighborhood can
be eligible as the traditional
home of a particular cultural
group and as a reflection of its
beliefs and practices.
Not Eligible
• A site viewed as sacred by a
recently established Utopian or
religious community does not
have traditional cultural value
and is not eligible.
Criterion A - The Old Brulay Plantation, Brownsville vicinity, Cameron county,
Texas. Historically significant for its association with the development of agriculture
in southeast Texas, this complex of 10 brick buildings was constructed by George N.
Brulay, a French immigrant who introduced commercial sugar production and
irrigation to the Rio Grande Valley. (Photo by Texas Historical Commission).
5 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.
13
CRITERION B: PERSON
Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our
past.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION B:
PERSON6
Criterion B applies to properties
associated with individuals whose
specific contributions to history can
be identified and documented.
Persons "significant in our past"
refers to individuals whose activities
are demonstrably important within a
local, State, or national historic
context. The criterion is generally
restricted to those properties that
illustrate (rather than commemorate)
a person's important achievements.
(The policy regarding commemora-
tive properties, birthplaces, and
graves is explained further in Part
VIII: How to Apply the Criteria Consid-
erations.)
Several steps are involved in
determining whether a property is
significant for its associative values
under Criterion B. First, determine
the importance of the individual.
Second, ascertain the length and
nature of his/her association with the
property under study and identify the
other properties associated with the
individual. Third, consider the
property under Criterion B, as
outlined below.
EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH PERSONS
Properties associated with a Significant
Person:
• The home of an important merchant
or labor leader.
• The studio of a significant artist.
• The business headquarters of an im-
portant industrialist.
Criterion B - The William Whitney House, Hinsdale, DuPage County, Illinois.
This building is locally significant for its historical association with William Whitney,
the founder of the town of Hinsdale, Illinois. Whitney, a citizen of New York State,
moved to Illinois, established the town, and while living here between 1870 and 1879
was a prominent local businessman and politician. (Photo by Frederick C. Cue).
'For further information on properties eligible under Criterion B, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Properties Associated with Significant Persons.
14
APPLYING
CRITERION B:
PERSON
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL
The persons associated with the
property must be individually signifi-
cant within a historic context. A
property is not eligible if its only
justification for significance is that it
was owned or used by a person who
is a member of an identifiable profes-
sion, class, or social or ethnic group.
It must be shown that the person
gained importance within his or her
profession or group.
Eligible
• The residence of a doctor, a
mayor, or a merchant is eli-
gible under Criterion B if the
person was significant in the
field of medicine, politics, or
commerce, respectively.
Not Eligible
• A property is not eligible un-
der Criterion B if it is associ-
ated with an individual about
whom no scholarly judgement
can be made because either re-
search has not revealed spe-
cific information about the
person's activities and their
impact, or there is insufficient
perspective to determine
whether those activities or
contributions were historically
important.
ASSOCIATION WITH THE
PROPERTY
Properties eligible under Criterion
B are usually those associated with a
person's productive life, reflecting the
time period when he or she achieved
significance. In some instances this
may be the person's home; in other
cases, a person's business, office,
laboratory, or studio may best repre-
sent his or her contribution. Proper-
ties that pre- or post-date an
individual's significant accomplish-
ments are usually not eligible. (See
Comparison to Related Properties, below,
for exceptions to this rule.)
The individual's association with
the property must be documented by
accepted methods of historical or
archeological research, including
written or oral history. Speculative
associations are not acceptable. For
archeological sites, well reasoned
inferences drawn from data recovered
at the site are acceptable.
COMPARISON TO RELATED
PROPERTIES
Each property associated with an
important individual should be
compared to other associated proper-
ties to identify those that best repre-
sent the person's historic contribu-
tions. The best representatives
usually are properties associated with
the person's adult or productive life.
Properties associated with an
individual's formative or later years
may also qualify if it can be demon-
strated that the person's activities
during this period were historically
significant or if no properties from the
person's productive years survives.
Length of association is an important
factor when assessing several proper-
ties with similar associations.
A community or State may contain
several properties eligible for associa-
tions with the same important person,
if each represents a different aspect of
the person's productive life. A
property can also be eligible if it has
brief but consequential associations
with an important individual. (Such
associations are often related to
specific events that occurred at the
property and, therefore, it may also be
eligible under Criterion A.)
ASSOCIATION WITH
GROUPS
For properties associated with
several community leaders or with a
prominent family, it is necessary to
identify specific individuals and to
explain their significant accomplish-
ments.
Eligible
• A residential district in which a
large number of prominent or
influential merchants, profes-
sionals, civic leaders, politi-
cians, etc., lived will be eligible
under Criterion B if the signifi-
cance of one or more specific
individual residents is explic-
itly justified.
• A building that served as the
seat of an important family is
eligible under Criterion B if the
significant accomplishments of
one or more individual family
members is explicitly justified.
Not Eligible
• A residential district in which a
large number of influential per-
sons lived is not eligible under
Criterion B if the accomplish-
ments of a specific indivi-
dual^) cannot be documented.
If the significance of the district
rests in the cumulative impor-
tance of prominent residents,
however, then the district
might still be eligible under
Criterion A. Eligibility, in this
case, would be based on the
broad pattern of community
development, through which
the neighborhood evolved into
the primary residential area for
this class of citizens.
• A building that served as the
seat of an important family will
not be eligible under Criterion
B if the significant accomplish-
ments of individual family
members cannot be docu-
mented. In cases where a suc-
cession of family members
have lived in a house and col-
lectively have had a demon-
strably significant impact on
the community, as a family, the
house is more likely to be sig-
nificant under Criterion A for
association with a pattern of
events.
15
ASSOCIATION WITH
LIVING PERSONS
Properties associated with living
persons are usually not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register.
Sufficient time must have elapsed to
assess both the person's field of
endeavor and his/her contribution to
that field. Generally, the person's
active participation in the endeavor
must be finished for this historic
perspective to emerge. (See Criteria
Considerations C and G in Part VII:
How to Apply the Criteria Consider-
ations.)
ASSOCIATION WITH
ARCHITECTS/ARTISANS
Architects, artisans, artists, and
engineers are often represented by
their works, which are eligible under
Criterion C. Their homes and studios,
however, can be eligible for consider-
ation under Criterion B, because these
usually are the properties with which
they are most personally associated.
NATIVE AMERICAN SITES
The known major villages of
individual Native Americans who
were important during the contact
period or later can qualify under
Criterion B. As with all Criterion B
properties, the individual associated
with the property must have made
some specific important contribution
to history. Examples include sites
significantly associated with Chief
Joseph and Geronimo.7
7 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.
16
CRITERION C:
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they 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.
Richland Plantation, East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Properties can qualify under
Criterion C as examples of high style architecture. Built in the 1830s, Richland is a
fine example of a Federal style residence with a Greek Revival style portico. (Photo by
Dave Gleason).
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION C:
DESIGN/
CONSTRUCTION
This criterion applies to properties
significant for their physical design or
construction, including such elements
as architecture, landscape architec-
ture, engineering, and artwork. To be
eligible under Criterion C, a property
must meet at least one of the following
requirements:
• Embody distinctive characteris-
tics of a type, period, or method
of construction.
• Represent the work of a master.
• Possess high artistic value.
• Represent a significant and dis-
tinguishable entity whose com-
ponents may lack individual dis-
tinction.
The first requirement, that proper-
ties "embody the distinctive charac-
teristics of a type, period, or method
of construction/' refers to the way in
which a property was conceived,
designed, or fabricated by a people or
culture in past periods of history.
"The work of a master" refers to the
technical or aesthetic achievements of
an architect or craftsman. "High
artistic values" concerns the expres-
sion of aesthetic ideals or preferences
and applies to aesthetic achievement.
Resources "that represent a signifi-
cant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual dis-
tinction" are called "districts." In the
Criteria for Evaluation (as published
in the Code of Federal Regulations and
reprinted here in Part II), districts are
defined within the context of Crite-
rion C. Districts, however, can be con-
sidered for eligibility under all the Crite-
ria, individually or in any combina-
tion, as is appropriate. For this rea-
son, the full discussion of districts is
contained in Part IV: How to Define
Categories of Historic Properties.
Throughout the bulletin, however,
districts are mentioned within the
context of a specific subject, such as
an individual Criterion.
Grant Family House, Saco vicinity,
York County, Maine. Properties
possessing high artistic value meet
Criterion C through the expression of
aesthetic ideals or preferences. The Grant
Family House, a modest Federal style
residence, is significant for its remarkably
well-preserved stenciled wall decorative
treatment in the entry hall and parlor.
Painted by an unknown artist ca. 1825,
this is a fine example of 19th century New
England regional artistic expression.
(Photo by Kirk F. Mohney).
17
EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN/
CONSTRUCTION
Properties associated with design and
construction:
• A house or commercial building rep-
resenting a significant style of archi-
tecture.
• A designed park or garden associated
with a particular landscape design
philosophy.
• A movie theater embodying high ar-
tistic value in its decorative features.
• A bridge or dam representing techno-
logical advances.
APPLYING
CRITERION C:
DESIGN/
CONSTRUCTION
DISTINCTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF
TYPE, PERIOD, AND
METHOD OF
CONSTRUCTION
This is the portion of Criterion C
under which most properties are
eligible, for it encompasses all archi-
tectural styles and construction
practices. To be eligible under this
portion of the Criterion, a property
must clearly illustrate, through
"distinctive characteristics/' the
following:
• The pattern of features common
to a particular class of resources,
• The individuality or variation of
features that occurs within the
class,
• The evolution of that class, or
• The transition between classes of
resources.
Distinctive Characteristics: "Dis-
tinctive characteristics" are the physi-
cal features or traits that commonly
recur in individual types, periods, or
methods of construction. To be
eligible, a property must clearly
contain enough of those characteristics
to be considered a true representative
of a particular type, period, or method
of construction.
Characteristics can be expressed in
terms such as form, proportion, struc-
ture, plan, style, or materials. They
can be general, referring to ideas of
design and construction such as basic
plan or form, or they can be specific,
referring to precise ways of combining
particular kinds of materials.
Eligible
• A building eligible under the
theme of Gothic Revival archi-
tecture must have the distinc-
tive characteristics that make
up the vertical and picturesque
qualities of the style, such as
pointed gables, steep roof
pitch, board and batten siding,
and ornamental bargeboard
and veranda trim.
• A late Mississippian village
that illustrates the important
concepts in prehistoric
community design and plan-
ning will qualify.
• A designed historic landscape
will qualify if it reflects a his-
toric trend or school of theory
and practice, such as the City
Beautiful Movement, evidenc-
ingdistinguished design, lay-
out, and the work of skilled
craftsmanship.
Not Eligible
• A commercial building with
some Art Deco detailing is not
eligible under Criterion C if the
detailing was added merely as
an afterthought, rather than
fully integrated with overall
lines and massing typical of the
Art Deco style or the transition
between that and another style.
• A designed landscape that has
had major changes to its his-
toric design, vegetation, origi-
nal boundary, topography/
grading, architectural features,
and circulation system will not
qualify.
Type, Period, and Method of
Construction: "Type, period, or
method of construction" refers to the
way certain properties are related to
one another by cultural tradition or
function, by dates of construction or
style, or by choice or availability of
materials and technology.
A structure is eligible as a speci-
men of its type or period of construc-
tion if it is an important example
(within its context) of building
practices of a particular time in
history. For properties that represent
the variation, evolution, or transition
of construction types, it must be
demonstrated that the variation, etc.,
was an important phase of the archi-
tectural development of: the area or
community in that it had an impact as
evidenced by later buildings. A
property is not eligible, however,
simply because it has been identified
as the only such property ever fabri-
cated; it must be demonstrated to be
significant as well.
Eligible
• A building that has some char-
acteristics of the Romanesque
Revival style and some charac-
teristics of the Commercial
style can qualify if it illustrates
the transition of architectural
design and the transition itself
is considered an important ar-
chitectural development.
• A Hopewellian mound, if it is
an important example of
mound building construction
techniques, would qualify as a
method or type of construc-
tion.
• A building which illustrates
the early or the developing
technology of particular
structural systems, such as
skeletal steel framing, is eli-
gible as an example of a
particular method of construc-
tion.
18
Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant, Murphy vicinity, Ada County, Idaho.
Significant works of engineering can qualify under Criterion C. Built between 1900-
1907 the Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant across the Snake River is one of the early
hydroelectric plants in the State of Idaho. (Photo by H.L. Hough).
HISTORIC ADAPTATION OF
THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY
A property can be significant not
only for the way it was originally
constructed or crafted, but also for the
way it was adapted at a later period,
or for the way it illustrates changing
tastes, attitudes, and uses over a
period of time.
A district is eligible under this
guideline if it illustrates the evolution
of historic character of a place over a
particular span of time.
Looney House, Asheville vicinity, St. Clair County, Alabama. Examples of
vernacular styles of architecture can qualify under Criterion C. Built ca. 1818, the
Looney House is significant as possibly the State's oldest extant two-story dogtrot type
of dwelling. The defining open center passage of the dogtrot was a regional building
response to the southern climate. (Photo by Carolyn Scott).
Eligible
• A Native American irrigation
system modified for use by
Europeans could be eligible if
it illustrates the technology of
either or both periods of con-
struction.
• An early 19th century farm-
house modified in the 1880s
with Queen Anne style orna-
mentation could be significant
for the modification itself, if it
represented a local variation
or significant trend in building
construction or remodelling,
was the work of a local master
(see Works of a Master on page
20), or reflected the tastes of an
important person associated
with the property at the time
of its alteration.
• A district encompassing the
commercial development of a
town between 1820 and 1910,
characterized by buildings of
various styles and eras, can be
eligible.
19
WORKS OF A MASTER
A master is a figure of generally
recognized greatness in a field, a
known craftsman of consummate
skill, or an anonymous craftsman
whose work is distinguishable from
others by its characteristic style and
quality. The property must express a
particular phase in the development
of the master's career, an aspect of his
or her work, or a particular idea or
theme in his or her craft.
A property is not eligible as the
work of a master, however, simply
because it was designed by a promi-
nent architect. For example, not every
building designed by Frank Lloyd
Wright is eligible under this portion
of Criterion C, although it might meet
other portions of the Criterion, for
instance as a representative of the
Prairie style.
The work of an unidentified
craftsman is eligible if it rises above
the level of workmanship of the other
properties encompassed by the
historic context.
PROPERTIES POSSESSING
HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES
High artistic values may be ex-
pressed in many ways, including
areas as diverse as community design
or planning, engineering, and sculp-
ture. A property is eligible for its
high artistic values if it so fully
articulates a particular concept of
design that it expresses an aesthetic
ideal. A property is not eligible,
however, if it does not express
aesthetic ideals or design concepts
more fully than other properties of its
type.
A Significant and Distinguishable
Entity Whose Components May Lack
Individual Distinction. This portion
of Criterion C refers to districts. For
detailed information on districts, refer
to Part IV of this bulletin.
Eligible
• A sculpture in a town square
that epitomizes the design
principles of the Art Deco style
is eligible.
• A building that is a classic ex-
pression of the design theories
o^ the Craftsman Style, such as
carefully detailed handwork,
is eligible.
• A landscaped park that syn-
thesizes early 20th century
principles of landscape archi-
tecture and expresses an aes-
thetic ideal of environment can
be eligible.
• Properties that are important
representatives of the aesthetic
values of a cultural group,
such as petroglyphs and
ground drawings by Native
Americans, are eligible.
Not Eligible
• A sculpture in a town square
that is a typical example of
sculpture design during its pe-
riod would not qualify for
high artistic value, although it
might be eligible if it were sig-
nificant for other reasons.
• A building that is a modest ex-
ample (within its historic con-
text) of the Craftsman Style of
architecture, or a landscaped
park that is characteristic of
turn of the century landscape
design would not qualify for
high artistic value.
20
CRITERION D: INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information im-
portant in prehistory or history.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERION D:
INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
Certain important research ques-
tions about human history can only be
answered by the actual physical
material of cultural resources. Crite-
rion D encompasses the properties
that have the potential to answer, in
whole or in part, those types of
research questions. The most com-
mon type of property nominated
under this Criterion is the archeologi-
cal site (or a district comprised of
archeological sites). Buildings,
objects, and structures (or districts
comprised of these property types),
however, can also be eligible for their
information potential.
Criterion D has two requirements,
which must both be met for a property
to qualify:
• The property must have, or have
had, information to contribute to
our understanding of human his-
tory or prehistory, and
• The information must be consid-
ered important.
Under the first of these require-
ments, a property is eligible if it has
been used as a source oi data and
contains more, as yet unretrieved
data. A property is also eligible if it
has not yet yielded information but,
through testing or research, is deter-
mined a likely source of data.
Under the second requirement, the
information must be carefully evalu-
ated within an appropriate context to
determine its importance. Informa-
tion is considered "important" when
it is shown to have a significant
bearing on a research design that
addresses such areas as: 1) current
data gaps or alternative theories that
challenge existing ones or 2) priority
areas identified under a State or
Federal agency management plan.
APPLYING
CRITERION D:
INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
Criterion D most commonly
applies to properties that contain or
are likely to contain information
bearing on an important archeological
research question. The property must
have characteristics suggesting the
likelihood that it possesses configura-
tions of artifacts, soil strata, structural
remains, or other natural or cultural
features that make it possible to do
the following:
• Test a hypothesis or hypotheses
about events, groups, or pro-
cesses in the past that bear on im-
portant research questions in the
social or natural sciences or the
humanities; or
• Corroborate or amplify currently
available information suggesting
that a hypothesis is either true or
false; or
• Reconstruct the sequence of ar-
cheological cultures for the pur-
pose of identifying and explain-
ing continuities and discontinu-
ities in the archeological record
for a particular area.
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES,
AND OBJECTS
While most often applied to
archeological districts and sites,
Criterion D can also apply to build-
ings, structures, and objects that
contain important information. In
order for these types of properties to
be eligible under Criterion D, they
themselves must be, or must have
been, the principal source of the
important information.
Eligible
• A building exhibiting a local
variation on a standard design
or construction technique can
be eligible if study could yield
important information, such as
how local availability of mate-
rials or construction expertise
affected the evolution of local
building development.
Not Eligible
• The ruins of a hacienda once
contained murals that have
since been destroyed. Histori-
cal documentation, however,
indicates that the murals were
significant for their highly un-
usual design. The ruins can
not be eligible under Criterion
D for the importance of the de-
stroyed murals if the informa-
tion is contained only in the
documentation.
21
Criterion D - Chantpe-Frentont 1 Archeological Site, Omaha vicinity, Douglas
County, Nebraska. This archeological site, dating from ca. 1100-1450 A.D., consists of
pit houses and storage pits which have the potential to yield important information
concerning the subsistence patterns, religious and mortuary practices, and social
organization of the prehistoric residents of eastern Nebraska. (Nebraska State
Historical Society)
ASSOCIATION WITH
HUMAN ACTIVITY
A property must be associated with
human activity and be critical for
understanding a site's historic environ-
ment in order to be eligible under
Criterion D. A property can be linked
to human activity through events,
processes, institutions, design, con-
struction, settlement, migration, ideals,
beliefs, lifeways, and other facets of the
development or maintenance of
cultural systems.
The natural environment associated
with the properties was often very
different from that of the present and
strongly influenced cultural develop-
ment. Aspects of the environment that
are pertinent to human activities
should be considered when evaluating
properties under Criterion D.
Natural features and paleontological
(floral and faunal) sites are not usually
eligible under Criterion D in and of
themselves. They can be eligible,
however, if they are either directly
related to human activity or critical to
understanding a site's historic environ-
ment. In a few cases, a natural feature
or site unmarked by cultural materials,
that is primarily eligible under Crite-
rion A, may also be eligible under
Criterion D, if study of the feature, or
its location, setting, etc. (usually in the
context of data gained from other
sources), will yield important informa-
tion about the event or period with
which it is associated.
ESTABLISHING A HISTORIC
CONTEXT
The information that a property
yields, or will yield, must be evalu-
ated within an appropriate historic
context. This will entail consulting
the body of information already
collected from similar properties or
other pertinent sources, including
modern and historic written records.
The researcher must be able to
anticipate if and how the potential
information will affect the definition
of the context. The information likely
to be obtained from a particular
property must confirm, refute, or
supplement in an important way
existing information.
A property is not eligible if it
cannot be related to a particular time
period or cultural group and, as a
result, lacks any historic context
within which to evaluate the impor-
tance of the information to be gained.
DEVELOPING RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
Having established the importance
of the information that may be
recovered, it is necessary to be explicit
in demonstrating the connection
between the important information
and a specific property. One ap-
proach is to determine if specific
important research questions can be
answered by the data contained in the
property. Research questions can be
related to property-specific issues, to
broader questions about a large
geographic area, or to theoretical
issues independent of any particular
geographic location. These questions
may be derived from the academic
community or from preservation
programs at the local, regional, State,
or national level. Research questions
are usually developed as part of a
"research design," which specifies not
only the questions to be asked, but
also the types of data needed to
supply the answers, and often the
techniques needed to recover the data.
Eligible
• When a site consisting of a vil-
lage occupation with midden
deposits, hearths, ceramics,
and stratified evidence of sev-
eral occupations is being
evaluated, three possible re-
search topics could be: 1) the
question of whether the site
occupants were indigenous to
the area prior to the time of oc-
cupation or recent arrivals, 2)
the investigation of the settle-
ment-subsistence pattern of
the occupants, 3) the question
of whether the region was a
center for the domestication of
plants. Specific questions
could include: A) Do the de-
posits show a sequential de-
velopment or sudden intro-
duction of Ceramic Type X?
B) Do the dates of the occupa-
tions fit our expectations based
on the current model for the
reoccupation behavior of
slash-and-burn agricultural-
ists? C) Can any genetic
changes in the food plant re-
mains be detected?
Not Eligible
• A property is not eligible if so
little can be understood about
it that it is not possible to de-
termine if specific important
research questions can be an-
swered by data contained in
the property.
22
ESTABLISHING THE
PRESENCE OF ADEQUATE
DATA
To support the assertion that a
property has the data necessary to
provide the important information,
the property should be investigated
with techniques sufficient to establish
the presence of relevant data catego-
ries. What constitutes appropriate
investigation techniques would
depend upon specific circumstances
including the property's location,
condition, and the research questions
being addressed, and could range
from surface survey (or photographic
survey for buildings), to the applica-
tion of remote sensing techniques or
intensive subsurface testing. Justifica-
tion of the research potential of a
property may be based on analogy to
another better known property if
sufficient similarities exist to establish
the appropriateness of the analogy.
Eligible
• Data requirements depend on
the specific research topics and
questions to be addressed. To
continue the example in "De-
veloping Research Questions"
above, we might want to ascer-
tain the following with refer-
ence to questions A, B, and C:
A) The site contains Ceramic
Type X in one or more occupa-
tion levels and we expect to be
able to document the local
evaluation of the type or its in-
trusive nature. B) The hearths
contain datable carbon deposits
and are associated with more
than one occupation. C) The
midden deposits show good
floral/faunal preservation, and
we know enough about the
physical evolution of food
plants to interpret signs that
suggest domestication.
Not Eligible
• Generally, if the applicable re-
search design requires clearly
stratified deposits, then subsur-
face investigation techniques
must be applied. A site com-
posed only of surface materials
can not be eligible for its poten-
tial to yield information that
could only be found in strati-
fied deposits.
INTEGRITY
The assessment of integrity for
properties considered for information
potential depends on the data require-
ments of the applicable research
design. A property possessing
information potential does not need to
recall visually an event, person,
process, or construction technique. It
is important that the significant data
contained in the property remain
sufficiently intact to yield the ex-
pected important information, if the
appropriate study techniques are
employed.
Eligible
• An irrigation system signifi-
cant for the information it will
yield on early engineering
practices can still be eligible
even though it is now filled in
and no longer retains the ap-
pearance of an open canal.
Not Eligible
• A plowed archeological site
contains several superimposed
components that have been
mixed to the extent that arti-
fact assemblages cannot be re-
constructed. The site cannot
be eligible if the data require-
ments of the research design
call for the study of artifacts
specific to one component.
PARTLY EXCAVATED OR
DISTURBED PROPERTIES
The current existence of appropri-
ate physical remains must be ascer-
tained in considering a property's
ability to yield important information.
Properties that have been partly
excavated or otherwise disturbed and
that are being considered for their
potential to yield additional impor-
tant information must be shown to
retain that potential in their remaining
portions.
Eligible
• A site that has been partially
excavated but still retains sub-
stantial intact deposits (or a
site in which the remaining de-
posits are small but contain
critical information on a topic
that is not well known) is eli-
gible.
Not Eligible
• A totally collected surface site
or a completely excavated bur-
ied site is not eligible since the
physical remains capable of
yielding important informa-
tion no longer exist at the site.
(See Completely Excavated Sites,
on page 24, for exception.)
Likewise, a site that has been
looted or otherwise disturbed
to the extent that the remain-
ing cultural materials have lost
their important depositional
context (horizontal or vertical
location of deposits) is not eli-
gible.
• A reconstructed mound or
other reconstructed site will
generally not be considered
eligible, because original cul-
tural materials or context or
both have been lost.
23
COMPLETELY EXCAVATED
SITES
Properties that have yielded
important information in the past and
that no longer retain additional
research potential (such as completely
excavated archeological sites) must be
assessed essentially as historic sites
under Criterion A. Such sites must be
significant for associative values
related to: 1) the importance of the
data gained or 2) the impact of the
property's role in the history of the
development of anthropology/
archeology or other relevant disci-
plines. Like other historic properties,
the site must retain the ability to
convey its association as the former
repository of important information,
the location of historic events, or the
representative of important trends.
Eligible
• A property that has been exca-
vated is eligible if the data re-
covered was of such impor-
tance that it influenced the di-
rection of research in the disci-
pline, as in a site that clearly
established the antiquity of the
human occupation of the New
World. (See Criterion A in
Part VI: How to Identify the
Type of Significance of a Property
and Criteria Consideration G
in Part VII: How to Apply the
Criteria Considerations.)
Not Eligible
• A totally excavated site that at
one time yielded important in-
formation but that no longer
can convey either its historic/
prehistoric utilization or sig-
nificant modern investigation
is not eligible.
24
VII. HOW TO APPLY THE
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Certain kinds of properties are not
usually considered for listing in the
National Register: religious proper-
ties, moved properties, birthplaces
and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed
properties, commemorative proper-
ties, and properties achieving signifi-
cance within the past fifty years.
These properties can be eligible for
listing, however, if they meet special
requirements, called Criteria Consid-
erations, in addition to meeting the
regular requirements (that is, being
eligible under one or more of the four
Criteria and possessing integrity).
Part VII provides guidelines for
determining which properties must
meet these special requirements and
for applying each Criteria Consider-
ation.
The Criteria Considerations need to
be applied only to individual proper-
ties. Components of eligible districts
do not have to meet the special
requirements unless they make up the
majority of the district or are the focal
point of the district. These are the
general steps to follow when applying
the Criteria Considerations to your
property:
• Before looking at the Criteria
Considerations, make sure your
property meets one or more of
the four Criteria for Evaluation
and possesses integrity.
• If it does, check the Criteria Con-
siderations (next column) to see if
the property is of a type that is
usually excluded from the Na-
tional Register. The sections that
follow also list specific examples
of properties of each type. If
your property clearly does not fit
one of these types, then it does
not need to meet any special re-
quirements.
• If your property does fit one o^
these types, then it must meet the
special requirements stipulated
for that type in the Criteria Con-
siderations.
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATIONS*
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces,
or graves of historical figures, proper-
ties owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed
historic buildings, properties prima-
rily commemorative in nature, and
properties that have achieved signifi-
cance within the past fifty years shall
not be considered eligible for the
National Register. However, such
properties will qualify if they are
integral parts of districts that do meet
the criteria or if they fall within the
following categories:
a. a religious property deriving pri-
mary significance from architec-
tural or artistic distinction or his-
torical importance; or
b. a building or structure removed
from its original location but
which is significant primarily for
architectural value, or which is
the surviving structure most im-
portantly associated with a his-
toric person or event; or
c. a birthplace or grave of a histori-
cal figure of outstanding impor-
tance if there is no appropriate
site or building directly associ-
ated with his or her productive
life; or
d. a cemetery which derives its pri-
mary significance from graves of
persons of transcendent impor-
tance, from age, from distinctive
design features, from association
with historic events; or
e. a reconstructed building when
accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a res-
toration master plan, and when
no other building or structure
with the same association has
survived; or
f. a property primarily commemo-
rative in intent if design, age, tra-
dition, or symbolic value has in-
vested it with its own exceptional
significance; or,
g. a property achieving significance
within the past 50 years if it is of
exceptional importance.
*The Criteria Considerations are taken from
the Criteria for Evaluation, found in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.
25
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A:
RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES
A religious property is eligible if it derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical
importance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
A: RELIGIOUS
PROPERTIES
A religious property requires
justification on architectural, artistic,
or historic grounds to avoid any
appearance of judgment by govern-
ment about the validity of any reli-
gion or belief. Historic significance
for a religious property cannot be
established on the merits of a reli-
gious doctrine, but rather, for archi-
tectural or artistic values or for
important historic or cultural forces
that the property represents. A
religious property's significance
under Criterion A, B, C, or D must be
judged in purely secular terms. A
religious group may, in some cases,
be considered a cultural group whose
activities are significant in areas
broader than religious history.
Criteria Consideration for Reli-
gious Properties applies:
• If the resource was constructed
by a religious institution.
• If the resource is presently
owned by a religious institution
or is used for religious purposes.
• If the resource was owned by a
religious institution or used for
religious purposes during its Pe-
riod of Significance.
• If Religion is selected as an Area
of Significance.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration A: Reli-
gions Properties
• A historic church where an inipor-
tant non-religious event occurred,
such as a speetfi by Patrick Henry.
• A historic synagogue that is signifi-
cant for architecture.
• A private residence is the site of a
meeting important to religious his-
tory.
• A commercial block that is currently
owned as an investment property by
a religious institution.
• A historic district in which religion
was either a predominant or signifi-
cant function during the period of
significance.
Example of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
A: Religious Properties
• A residential or commercial district
that currently contains a small num-
ber of churches that are not a pre-
dominant feature of the district.
• A town meeting hall that serves as
the center of community activity and
houses a wide variety of public
and private meetings, including reli-
gious service. The resource is sig-
nificant for architecture and politics,
and the religious function is inciden-
tal
• A town hall, significant for politics
from 1875 to 1925, that housed
religious services during the 1950s.
Since the religious function occurred
after the Period of Significance, the
Criteria Consideration does not ap-
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
A: RELIGIOUS
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
EVENTS
A religious property can be eligible
under Criterion A for any of three rea-
sons:
• It is significant under a theme in
the history of religion having
secular scholarly recognition; or
• It is significant under another his-
torical theme, such as explora-
tion, settlement, social philan-
thropy, or education; or
• It is significantly associated with
traditional cultural values.
26
RELIGIOUS HISTORY
A religious property can be eligible
if it is directly associated with either a
specific event or a broad pattern in the
history of religion.
Eligible
• The site of a convention at
which a significant denomina-
tional split occurred meets the
requirements of Criteria Con-
sideration A. Also eligible is a
property that illustrates the
broad impact of a religious in-
stitution on the history of a lo-
cal area.
Not Eligible
• A religious property cannot be
eligible simply because was
the place of religious services
for a community, or was the
oldest structure used by a reli-
gious group in a local area.
OTHER HISTORICAL
THEMES
A religious property can be eligible
if it is directly associated with either a
specific event or a broad pattern that
is significant in another historic
context. A religious property would
also qualify if it were significant for
its associations that illustrate the
importance of a particular religious
group in the social, cultural, eco-
nomic, or political history of the area.
Eligibility depends on the importance
of the event or broad pattern and the
role of the specific property.
Eligible
• A religious property can
qualify for its important role
as a temporary hospital during
the Revolutionary War, or if its
school was significant in the
history of education in the
community.
Not Eligible
• A religious property is not sig-
nificant in the history of edu-
cation in a community simply
because it had occasionally
served as a school.
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL
VALUES
When evaluating properties
associated with traditional cultures, it
is important to recognize that often
these cultures do not make clear
distinctions between what is secular
and what is sacred. Criteria Consider-
ation A is not intended to exclude
traditional cultural resources merely
because they have religious uses or
are considered sacred. A property or
natural feature important to a tradi-
tional culture's religion and mythol-
ogy is eligible if its importance has
been ethnohistorically documented
and if the site can be clearly defined.
It is critical, however, that the activi-
ties be documented and that the
associations not be so diffuse that the
physical resource cannot be ad-
equately defined.8
Eligible
• A specific location or natural
feature that an Indian tribe be-
lieves to be its place of origin
and that is adequately docu-
mented qualifies under Crite-
ria Consideration A.
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
PERSONS
A religious property can be eligible
for association with a person impor-
tant in religious history, if that
significance has scholarly, secular
recognition or is important in other
historic contexts. Individuals who
would likely be considered significant
are those who formed or significantly
influenced an important religious
institution or movement, or who were
important in the social, economic, or
political history of the area. Proper-
ties associated with individuals
important only within the context of a
single congregation and lacking
importance in any other historic
context would not be eligible under
Criterion B.
Eligible
• A religious property strongly
associated with a religious
leader, such as George
Whitefield or Joseph Smith, is
eligible.
8 For more information on applying Criteria Consideration A to traditional cultural properties,
refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
ARCHITECTURAL OR
ARTISTIC DISTINCTION
A religious property significant for
its architectural design or construc-
tion should be evaluated as are other
properties under Criterion C; that is,
it should be evaluated within an
established architectural context and,
if necessary, compared to other
properties of its type, period, or
method of construction. (See "Com-
paring Related Properties" in Part V:
How to Evaluate a Property Within Its
Historic Context.)
ELIGIBILITY FOR
INFORMATION POTENTIAL
A religious property, whether a
district, site, building, structure, or
object, is eligible if it can yield impor-
tant information about the religious
practices of a cultural group or other
historic themes. This kind of property
should be evaluated as are other
properties under Criterion D, in
relation to similar properties, other
information sources, and existing data
gaps.
Eligible
• A historic camp meeting dis-
trict that meets the require-
ments of Criterion C for its sig-
nificance as a type of construc-
tion is eligible.
Eligible
• A 19th century camp meeting
site that could provide infor-
mation about the length and
intensity of site use during re-
vivals of the Second Great
Awakening is eligible.
• Rock cairns or medicine
wheels that had a historic reli-
gious mythological function
and can provide information
about specific cultural beliefs
are eligible.
Criteria Consideration A - Religious Properties. A religious property can qualify
as an exception to the Criteria if it is architecturally significant. The Church of the
Navity in Rosedale, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, qualified as a rare example in the State
of a 19th century small frame Gothic Revival style chapel. (Robert Obier)
ABILITY TO REFLECT
HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS
As with all eligible properties,
religious properties must physically
represent the period of time for which
they are significance. For instance, a
recent building that houses an older
congregation cannot qualify based on
the historic activities of the group
because the current building does not
convey the earlier history. Likewise,
an older building that housed the
historic activities of the congregation
is eligible if it still physically repre-
sents the period of the congregation's
significance. However, if an older
building has been remodeled to the
extent that its appearance dates from
the time of the remodeling, it can only
be eligible if the period of significance
corresponds with the period of the
alterations.
Eligible
• A church built in the 18th cen-
tury and altered beyond recog-
nition in the 19th century is
eligible only if the additions
are important in themselves as
an example of late 19th cen-
tury architecture or as a reflec-
tion of an important period of
the congregation's growth.
Not Eligible
• A synagogue built in the 1920s
cannot be eligible for the im-
portant activities of its congre-
gation in the 18th and 19th
centuries. It can only be eli-
gible for significance obtained
after its construction date.
• A rural 19th century frame
church recently sheathed in
brick is not eligible because it
has lost its characteristic ap-
pearance and therefore can no
longer convey its 19th century
significance, either for archi-
tectural value or historic asso-
ciation.
28
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B:
MOVED PROPERTIES
A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily
for architectural value or it is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
B: MOVED
PROPERTIES
The National Register criteria limit
the consideration of moved properties
because significance is embodied in
locations and settings as well as in the
properties themselves. Moving a
property destroys the relationships
between the property and its sur-
roundings and destroys associations
with historic events and persons. A
move may also cause the loss of
historic features such as landscaping,
foundations, and chimneys, as well as
loss of the potential for associated
archeological deposits. Properties
that were moved before their period of
significance do not need to meet the
special requirements of Criteria
Consideration B.
One of the basic purposes of the
National Register is to encourage the
preservation of historic properties as
living parts of their communities. In
keeping with this purpose, it is not
usual to list artificial groupings of
buildings that have been created for
purposes of interpretation, protection,
or maintenance. Moving buildings to
such a grouping destroys the integrity
of location and setting, and can create
a false sense of historic development.
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
B: MOVED
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR
ARCHITECTURAL VALUE
A moved property significant
under Criterion C must retain enough
historic features to convey its architec-
tural values and retain integrity of
design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration B:
Moved Properties
• A resource moved from one location
on its original site to another loca-
tion on the property, during or after
its Period of Significance.
• A district in which a significant
number of resources have been
moved from their original location.
• A district which has one moved
building that makes an especially
significant contribution to the dis-
trict.
• A portable resource, such as a ship or
railroad car, that is relocated to a
place incompatible with its original
function.
• A portable resource, such as a ship or
railroad car, whose importance is
critically linked to its historic loca-
tion or route and that is moved.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
B: Moved Properties
• A property that is moved prior to its
Period of Significance.
• A district in which only a small per-
centage of typical buildings in a dis-
trict are moved.
• A moved building that is part of a
complex but is of less significance
than the remaining (unmoved)
buildings.
• A portable resource, such as a ship or
railroad car, that is eligible under
Criterion C and is moved within its
natural setting (water, rails, etc.).
• A property that is raised or lowered
on its foundations.
29
ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC
ASSOCIATIONS
A moved property significant
under Criteria A or B must be demon-
strated to be the surviving property
most importantly associated with a
particular historic event or an impor-
tant aspect of a historic person's life.
The phrase "most importantly associ-
ated" means that it must be the single
surviving property that is most
closely associated with the event or
with the part of the person's life for
which he or she is significant.
Eligible
• A moved building occupied by
an business woman during the
majority of her productive ca-
reer would be eligible if the
other extant properties are a
house she briefly inhabited
prior to her period of signifi-
cance and a commercial build-
ing she owned after her retire-
ment.
Not Eligible
• A moved building associated
with the beginning of rail
transportation in a community
is not eligible if the original
railroad station and ware-
house remained intact on their
original sites.
SETTING AND
ENVIRONMENT
In addition to the requirements
above, moved properties must still
have an orientation, setting, and
general environment that are compa-
rable to those of the historic location
and that are compatible with the
property's significance.
ASSOCIATION DEPENDENT
ON THE SITE
For a property whose design values
or historical associations are directly
dependent on its location, any move
will cause the property to lose its
integrity and prevent it from convey-
ing its significance.
Eligible
• A property significant as an
example of mid-19th century
rural house type can be eli-
gible after a move, provided
that it is placed on a lot that is
sufficient in size and character
to recall the basic qualities of
the historic environment and
setting, and provided that the
building is sited appropriately
in relation to natural and
manmade surroundings.
Not Eligible
• A rural house that is moved
into an urban area and a
bridge that is no longer situ-
ated over a waterway are not
eligible.
Eligible
• A farm structure significant
only as an example of a
method of construction pecu-
liar to the local area is still eli-
gible if it is moved within that
local area and the new setting
is similar to that of the original
location.
Not Eligible
• A 19th century rural residence
that was designed around par-
ticular topographic features,
reflecting that time period's
ideals of environment, is not
eligible if moved.
30
PROPERTIES DESIGNED TO
BE MOVED
A property designed to move or a
property frequently moved during its
historic use must be located in a
historically appropriate setting in
order to qualify, retaining its integrity
of setting, design, feeling, and associa-
tion. Such properties include automo-
biles, railroad cars and engines, and
ships.
ARTIFICIALLY CREATED
GROUPINGS
An artificially created grouping of
buildings, structures, or objects is not
eligible unless it has achieved signifi-
cance since the time of its assemblage.
It cannot be considered as a reflection
of the time period when the indi-
vidual buildings were constructed.
PORTIONS OF PROPERTIES
A moved portion of a building,
structure, or object is not eligible
because, as a fragment of a larger
resource, it has lost integrity of
design, setting, materials, workman-
ship, and location.
Eligible
• A ship docked in a harbor, a
locomotive on tracks or in a
railyard, and a bridge relo-
cated from one body of water
to another are eligible.
Not Eligible
• A ship on land in a park, a
bridge placed in a pasture, or a
locomotive displayed in an in-
door museum are not eligible.
Eligible
• A grouping of moved historic
buildings whose creation
marked the beginning of a ma-
jor concern with past lifestyles
can qualify as an early attempt
at historic preservation and as
an illustration of that genera-
tion's values.
Not Eligible
• A rural district composed of a
farmhouse on its original site
and a grouping oi historic
barns recently moved onto the
property is not eligible.
31
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C:
BIRTHPLACES OR GRAVES
A birthplace or grave of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no
other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
C: BIRTHPLACES
AND GRAVES
Birthplaces and graves often attain
importance as reflections o( the origins
of important persons or as lasting
memorials to them. The lives of
persons significant in our past nor-
mally are recognized by the National
Register through listing of properties
illustrative of or associated with that
person's productive life's work.
Birthplaces and graves, as properties
that represent the beginning and the
end of the life of distinguished indi-
viduals, may be temporally and
geographically far removed from the
person's significant activities, and
therefore are not usually considered
eligible.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration C: Birth-
places and Graves
• The birthplace of a significant person
who lived elsewhere during his or her
Period of Significance.
• A grave that is nominated for its as-
sociation with the significant person
buried in it.
• A grave that is nominated for infor-
mation potential.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
C: Birthplaces and Graves
• A house that was inhabited by a sig-
nificant person for his or her entire
lifetime.
• A grave located on the grounds of the
house where a significant person
spent his or her productive years.
32
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
C: BIRTHPLACES
AND GRAVES
PERSONS OF
OUTSTANDING
IMPORTANCE
The phrase "a historical figure of
outstanding importance" means that
in order for a birthplace or grave to
qualify, it cannot be simply the
birthplace or grave of a person
significant in our past (Criterion B). It
must be the birthplace or grave of an
individual who was of outstanding
importance in the history of the local
area, State, or nation. The birthplace
or grave of an individual who was
one of several people active in some
aspect of the history of a community,
a state, or the Nation would not be
eligible.
LAST SURVIVING
PROPERTY ASSOCIATED
WITH A PERSON
When an geographical area
strongly associated with a person of
outstanding importance has lost all
other properties directly associated
with his or her formative years or
productive life, a birthplace or grave
may be eligible.
ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER
ASSOCIATIONS
A birthplace or grave can also be
eligible if it is significant for reasons
other than association with the
productive life of the person in
question. It can be eligible for signifi-
cance under Criterion A for associa-
tion with important events, under
Criterion B for association with the
productive lives of other important
persons, or under Criterion C for
architectural significance. A birth-
place or grave can also be eligible in
rare cases if, after the passage of time,
it is significant for its commemorative
value. (See Criteria Consideration F
for a discussion of commemorative
properties.) A birthplace or grave can
also be eligible under Criterion D if it
contains important information on
research, e.g., demography, pathol-
ogy, mortuary practices, socioeco-
nomic status differentiation.
Criteria Consideration C - Birthplaces. A birthplace of a historical figure is eligible
if the person is of outstanding importance and there is no other appropriate site or
building associated with his or her productive life. The Walter Reed Birthplace,
Gloucester vicinity, Gloucester County, Virginia is the most appropriate remaining
building associated with the life of the man who, in 1900, discovered the cause and
mode of transmission of the great scourge of the tropics, yellow fever. (Virginia
Historic Landmarks Commission)
33
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D:
CEMETERIES
A cemetery is eligible if it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from
age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
D: CEMETERIES
A cemetery is a collection of graves
that is marked by stones or other
artifacts or that is unmarked but
recognizable by features such as
fencing or depressions, or through
maps, or by means of testing. Cem-
eteries serve as a primary means of an
individual's recognition of family
history and as expressions of collec-
tive religious and/or ethnic identity.
Because cemeteries may embody
values beyond personal or family-
specific emotions, the National
Register criteria allow for listing of
cemeteries under certain conditions.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration D:
Cemeteries
• A cemetery that is nominated indi-
vidually for Criterion A, B, or C,
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
D: Cemeteries
• A cemetery that is nominated along
with its associated church, but the
church is the main resource nomi-
nated.
• A cemetery that is nominated under
Criterion D for information poten-
tial.
• A cemetery that is nominated as part
of a district but is not the focal point
of the district.
Criteria Consideration D - Cemeteries. The Hancock Cemetery, Quincy, Norfolk
County, Massachusetts meets the exception to the Criteria because it derives its
primary significance from its great age (the earliest burials date from 1640) and from
the distinctive design features found in its rich collection of late 17th and early 18th
century funerary art. (N. Hobart Holly)
34
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
D: CEMETERIES
PERSONS OF
TRANSCENDENT
IMPORTANCE
A cemetery containing the graves
of persons of transcendent importance
may be eligible. To be of transcendent
importance the persons must have
been of great eminence in their fields
of endeavor or had a great impact
upon the history of their community,
State, or nation. (A single grave that
is the burial place of an important
person and is located in a larger
cemetery that does not qualify under
this Criteria Consideration should be
treated under Criteria Consideration
C: Birthplaces and Graves.)
Eligible
• A historic cemetery containing
the graves of a number of per-
sons who were exceptionally
significant in determining the
course of a State's political or
economic history during a par-
ticular period is eligible.
Not Eligible
• A cemetery containing graves
of State legislators is not eli-
gible if they simply performed
the daily business of State gov-
ernment and did not have an
outstanding impact upon the
nature and direction of the
State's history.
ELIGIBILITY ON THE BASIS
OF AGE
Cemeteries can be eligible if they
have achieved historic significance for
their relative great age in a particular
geographic or cultural context.
Eligible
• A cemetery dating from a
community's original 1830s
settlement can attain signifi-
cance from its association with
that very early period.
ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN
Cemeteries can qualify on the basis
of distinctive design values. These
values refer to the same design values
addressed in Criterion C and can
include aesthetic or technological
achievement in the fields of city
planning, architecture, landscape
architecture, engineering, mortuary
art, and sculpture. As for all other
nominated properties, a cemetery
must clearly express its design values
and be able to convey its historic
appearance.
Eligible
• A Victorian cemetery is eli-
gible if it clearly expresses the
aesthetic principlesrelated to
funerary design for that pe-
riod, through such features as
the overall plan, landscaping,
statuary, sculpture, fencing,
buildings, and grave markers.
Not Eligible
• A cemetery cannot be eligible
for design values if it no
longer conveys its historic ap-
pearance because of the intro-
duction of new grave markers.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
ASSOCIATION WITH
EVENTS
Cemeteries may be associated with
historic events including specific
important events or general events
that illustrate broad patterns.
Eligible
• A cemetery associated with an
important Civil War battle is
eligible.
• A cemetery associated with the
settlement of an area by an
ethnic or cultural group is eli-
gible if the movement of the
group into the area had an im-
portant impact, if other prop-
erties associated with that
group are rare, and if few
documentary sources have
survived to provide informa-
tion about the group's
history.
Not Eligible
• A cemetery associated with a
battle in the Civil War does
not qualify if the battle was
not important in the history of
the war.
• A cemetery associated with an
area's settlement by an ethnic
or cultural group is not eli-
gible if the impact of the group
on the area cannot be estab-
lished, if other extant historic
properties better convey asso-
ciation with the group, or if
the information that the cem-
etery can impart is available in
documentary sources.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
INFORMATION POTENTIAL
Cemeteries, both historic and
prehistoric, can be eligible if they
have the potential to yield important
information. The information must be
important within a specific context
and the potential to yield information
must be demonstrated.
A cemetery can qualify if it has
potential to yield important informa-
tion provided that the information it
contains is not available in extant
documentary evidence.
Eligible
• A cemetery associated with the
settlement of a particular cul-
tural group will qualify if it
has the potential to yield im-
portant information about sub-
jects such as demography,
variations in mortuary prac-
tices, or the study of the cause
of death correlated with nutri-
tion or other variables.
35
INTEGRITY
Assessing the integrity of a historic
cemetery entails evaluating principal
design features such as plan, grave
markers, and any related elements
(such as fencing). Only that portion
of a historic cemetery that retains its
historic integrity can be eligible. If the
overall integrity has been lost because
of the number and size of recent grave
markers, some features such as
buildings, structures, or objects that
retain integrity may be considered as
individual properties if they are of
such historic or artistic importance
that they individually meet one or
more of the requirements listed
above.
NATIONAL CEMETERIES
National Cemeteries administered
by the Veterans Administration are
eligible because they have been
designated by Congress as primary
memorials to the military history of
the United States. Those areas within
a designated national cemetery that
have been used or prepared for the
reception of the remains of veterans
and their dependents, as well as any
landscaped areas that immediately
surround the graves may qualify.
Because these cemeteries draw their
significance from the presence of the
remains of military personnel who
have served the country throughout
its history, the age of the cemetery is
not a factor in judging eligibility,
although integrity must be present.
A national cemetery or a portion of
a national cemetery that has only been
set aside for use in the future is not
eligible.
36
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E:
RECONTRUCTED PROPERTIES
A reconstructed property is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dig-
nified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations
has survived. All three of these requirements must be met.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION E:
RECONSTRUCTED
PROPERTIES
"Reconstruction" is defined as the
reproduction of the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, struc-
ture, object, or a part thereof, as it
appeared at a specific period of time.
Reconstructed buildings fall into two
categories: buildings wholly con-
structed of new materials and build-
ings reassembled from some historic
and some new materials. BotH catego-
ries of properties present problems in
meeting the integrity requirements of
the National Register criteria.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration E: Recon-
structed Properties
• A property in which most or all of the
fabric is not original.
• A district in which an important re-
source or a significant number of re-
sources are reconstructions.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration E:
Reconstructed Properties
• A property that is remodeled or reno-
vated and still has the majority of its
original fabric.
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION E:
RECONSTRUCTED
PROPERTIES
ACCURACY OF THE
RECONSTRUCTION
The phrase "accurately executed"
means that the reconstruction must be
based upon sound archeological,
architectural, and historic data con-
cerning the historic construction and
appearance of the resource. That
documentation should include both
analysis of any above or below ground
material and research in written and
other records.
SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT
The phrase "suitable environment"
refers to: 1) the physical context
provided by the historic district and
2) any interpretive scheme, if the
historic district is used for interpretive
purposes. This means that the
reconstructed property must be
located at the same site as the original.
It must also be situated in its original
grouping of buildings, structures, and
objects (as many as are extant), and
that grouping must retain integrity.
In addition, the reconstruction must
not be misrepresented as an authentic
historic property.
Eligible
• A reconstructed plantation
manager's office building is
considered eligible because it
is located at its historic site,
grouped with the remaining
historic plantation buildings
and structures, and the planta-
tion as a whole retains integ-
rity. Interpretation of the
plantation district includes an
explanation that the manager's
office is not the original build-
ing, but a reconstruction.
Not Eligible
• The same reconstructed plan-
tation manager's office build-
ing would not qualify if it
were rebuilt at a location dif-
ferent from that of the original
building, or if the district as a
whole no longer reflected the
period for which it is signifi-
cant, or if a misleading inter-
pretive scheme were used for
the district or for the recon-
struction itself.
37
RESTORATION MASTER
PLANS
Being presented "as part of a
restoration master plan" means that:
1) a reconstructed property is an
essential component in a historic
district and 2) the reconstruction is
part of an overall restoration plan for
an entire district. "Restoration" is
defined as accurately recovering the
form and details of a property and its
setting as it appeared at a particular
period by removing later work or by
replacing missing earlier work (as
opposed to completely rebuilding the
property). The master plan for the
entire property must emphasize
restoration, not reconstruction. In
other words, the master plan for the
entire resource would not be accept-
able under this consideration if it
called for reconstruction of a majority
of the resource.
Eligible
• A reconstructed plantation
manager's office is eligible if
the office were an important
component of the plantation
and if the reconstruction is one
element in an overall plan for
restoring the plantation and if
no other building or structure
with the same associations has
survived.
• The reconstruction of the plan-
tation manager's office build-
ing can be eligible only if the
majority of buildings, struc-
tures, and objects that com-
prised the plantation are ex-
tant and are being restored.
For guidance regarding resto-
ration see the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation Projects.
LAST SURVIVING
PROPERTY OF A TYPE
This consideration also stipulates
that a reconstruction can qualify if, in
addition to the other requirements, no
other building, object, or structure
with the same association has sur-
vived. A reconstruction that is part of
a restoration master plan is appropri-
ate only if: 1) the property is the only
one in the district with which a
particular important activity or event
has been historically associated or
2) no other property with the same
associative values has survived.
RECONSTRUCTIONS
OLDER THAN FIFTY YEARS
After the passage of fifty years, a
reconstruction may attain its own
significance for what it reveals about
the period in which it was built,
rather than the historic period it was
intended to depict. On that basis, a
reconstruction can possibly qualify
under any of the Criteria.
38
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES
A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested
it with its own historical significance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE
PROPERTIES
Commemorative properties are
designed or constructed after the
occurrence of an important historic
event or after the life of an important
person. They are not directly associ-
ated with the event or with the
person's productive life, but serve as
evidence of a later generation's assess-
ment of the past. Their significance
comes from their value as cultural
expressions at the date of their cre-
ation. Therefore, a commemorative
property generally must be over fifty
years old and must possess signifi-
cance based on its own value, not on
the value of the event or person being
memorialized.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration F:
Commemorative Properties
• A property whose sole or primary
function is commemorative or in
which the commemorative function
is of primary significance.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
F: Commemorative Properties
• A resource that has a non-
commemorative primary function
or significance.
• A single marker that is a component
of a district (whether contributing or
non-contributi ng).
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION F:
COMMEMORATIVE
PROPERTIES
ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN
A commemorative property derives
its design from the aesthetic values of
the period of its creation. A com-
memorative property, therefore, may
be significant for the architectural,
artistic, or other design qualities of its
own period in prehistory or history.
Eligible
• A commemorative statue situ-
ated in a park or square is eli-
gible if it expresses the aesthet-
ics or craftsmanship of the pe-
riod when it was made, meet-
ing Criterion C.
• A late 19th century statue
erected on a courthouse square
to commemorate Civil War vet-
erans would qualify if it reflects
that era's shared perception of
the noble character and valor of
the veterans and their cause.
This was commonly conveyed
by portraying idealized soldiers
or allegorical figures of battle,
victory, or sacrifice.
39
ELIGIBILITY FOR AGE,
TRADITION, OR SYMBOLIC
VALUE
A commemorative property cannot
qualify for association with the event
or person it memorializes. A com-
memorative property may, however,
acquire significance after the time of
its creation through age, tradition, or
symbolic value. This significance must
be documented by accepted methods
of historical research, including
written or oral history, and must meet
one or more of the Criteria.
Eligible
• A commemorative marker
erected by a cultural group
that believed the place was the
site of its origins is eligible if,
for subsequent generations of
the group, the marker itself be-
came the focus of traditional
association with the group's
historic identity.
• A building erected as a monu-
ment to an important histori-
cal figure will qualify if
through the passage of time
the property itself has come to
symbolize the value placed
upon the individual and is
widely recognized as a re-
minder of enduring principles
or contributions valued by the
generation that erected the
monument.
• A commemorative marker
erected early in the settlement
or development of an area will
qualify if it is demonstrated
that, because of its relative
great age, the property has
long been a part of the historic
identity of the area.
Not Eligible
• A commemorative marker
erected in the past by a cul-
tural group at the site of an
event in its history would not
be eligible if the marker were
significant only for association
with the event, and it had not
become significant itself
through tradition.
• A building erected as a monu-
ment to an important histori-
cal figure would not be eligible
if its only value lay in its asso-
ciation with the individual,
and it has not come to symbol-
ize values, ideas, or contribu-
tions valued by the generation
that erected the monument.
• A commemorative marker
erected to memorialize an
event in the community's
history would not qualify sim-
ply for its association with the
event it memorialized.
INELIGIBILITY AS THE
LAST REPRESENTATIVE OF
AN EVENT OR PERSON
The loss of properties directly
associated with a significant event or
person does not strengthen the case
for consideration of a commemorative
property. Unlike birthplaces and
graves, a commemorative property
usually has no direct historic associa-
tion. The commemorative property
can qualify for historic association
only if it is clearly significant in its
own right, as stipulated above.
40
CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G:
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS
A property achieving significance within the last fifty years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.
UNDERSTANDING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
G: PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE LAST
FIFTY YEARS
The National Register Criteria for
Evaluation exclude properties that
achieved significance within the last
fifty years unless they are of excep-
tional importance. Fifty years is a
general estimate of the time needed to
develop historical perspective and to
evaluate significance. This consider-
ation guards against the listing of
properties of passing contemporary
interest and ensures that the National
Register is a list of truly historic
places.
Examples of Properties that MUST
Meet Criteria Consideration G: Prop-
erties that Have Achieved Signifi-
cance Within the Last Fifty Years
• A property that is less than fifty
years old.
• A property that continues to achieve
significance into a period less than
fifty years before the nomination.
• A property that has non-contiguous
Periods of Significance, one of which
is less than fifty years before the
nomination.
• A property that is more than fifty
years old and had no significance
until a period less than fifty years
before the nomination.
Examples of Properties that DO NOT
Need to Meet Criteria Consideration
G: Properties that Have Achieved
Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years
• A resource whose construction be-
gan over fifty years ago, but the
completion overlaps the fifty year pe-
riod by a few years or less.
• A resource that is significant for its
plan or design, which is over fifty
years old, but the actual completion
of the project overlaps the fifty year
period by a few years.
• A historic district in which a few
properties are newer than fifty years
old, but the majority of properties
and the most important Period of
Significance are greater than fifty
years old.
9 For more information on Criteria Consideration G, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have
Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years.
41
APPLYING
CRITERIA
CONSIDERATION
G: PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
SIGNIFICANCE
WITHIN THE PAST
FIFTY YEARS
ELIGIBILITY FOR
EXCEPTIONAL
IMPORTANCE
The phrase "exceptional impor-
tance" may be applied to the extraor-
dinary importance of an event or to
an entire category of resources so
fragile that survivors of any age are
unusual. Properties listed that had
attained significance in less than fifty
years include: the launch pad at Cape
Canaveral from which men first
traveled to the moon, the home of
nationally prominent playwright
Eugene O'Neill, and the Chrysler
Building (New York) significant as the
epitome of the "Style Moderne"
architecture.
Properties less than fifty years old
that qualify as exceptional because the
entire category of resources is fragile
include a recent example of a tradi-
tional sailing canoe in the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, where
because of rapid deterioration of
materials, no working Micronesian
canoes exist that are more than twenty
years old. Properties that by their
nature can last more than fifty years
cannot be considered exceptionally
important because of the fragility of
the class of resources.
The phrase "exceptional impor-
tance" does not require that the
property be of national significance.
It is a measure of a property's impor-
tance within the appropriate historic
context, whether the scale of that
context is local, State, or national.
Eligible
• The General Laundry Building
in New Orleans, one of the few
remaining Art Deco Style
buildings in that city, was
listed in the National Register
when it was forty years old be-
cause of its exceptional impor-
tance as an example of that ar-
chitectural style.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
A property that has achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can be evaluated only when sufficient
historical perspective exists to deter-
mine that the property is exception-
ally important. The necessary per-
spective can be provided by scholarly
research and evaluation, and must
consider both the historic context and
the specific property's role in that
context.
In many communities, properties
such as apartment buildings built in
the 1950s cannot be evaluated because
there is no scholarly research avail-
able to provide an overview of the
nature, role, and impact of that
building type within the context of
historical and architectural develop-
ments of the 1950s.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
RUSTIC ARCHITECTURE
Properties such as structures built
in a rustic style by the National Park
Service during the 1930s and 1940s
can be evaluated because a broad
study, National Park Service Rustic
Architecture (1977), provides the
context for evaluating properties of
this type and style. Specific examples
were listed in the National Register
prior to reaching fifty years of age
when documentation concerning the
individual properties established their
significance within the historical and
architectural context of the type and
style.
VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION
HOSPITALS
Hospitals less than fifty years old
that were constructed by the Veterans
Bureau and Veterans Administration
can be evaluated because the collec-
tion of forty-eight facilities built be-
tween 1920 and 1946 has been ana-
lyzed in a study prepared by the
agency. The study provided a historic
and architectural context for develop-
ment of veteran's care within which
hospitals could be evaluated. The ex-
ceptional importance of specific indi-
vidual facilities constructed within the
past fifty years could therefore be de-
termined based on their role and their
present integrity.
COMPARISON WITH
RELATED PROPERTIES
In justifying exceptional impor-
tance, it is necessary to identify other
properties within the geographical
area that reflect the same significance
or historic associations and to deter-
mine which properties best represent
the historic context in question.
Several properties in the area could
become eligible with the passage of
time, but few will qualify now as
exceptionally important.
POST-WORLD WAR II
PROPERTIES
Properties associated with the post-
World War II era must be identified
and evaluated to determine which
ones in an area could be judged
exceptionally important. For ex-
ample, a public housing complex may
be eligible as an outstanding expres-
sion of the nation's post-war urban
policy. A military installation could
be judged exceptionally important
because of its contribution to the Cold
War arms race. A church building in
a Southern city may have served as
the pivotal rallying point for the city's
most famous civil rights protest. A
post-war suburban subdivision may
be the best reflection of contemporary
siting and design tenets in a metro-
politan area. In each case, the nomi-
nation preparer must justify the
exceptional importance of the property
relative to similar properties in the
community, State, or nation.
42
ELIGIBILITY FOR
INFORMATION POTENTIAL
A property that has achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can qualify under Criterion D only if
it can be demonstrated that the
information is of exceptional impor-
tance within the appropriate context
and that the property contains data
superior to or different from those
obtainable from other sources, includ-
ing other culturally related sites. An
archeological site less than fifty years
old may be eligible if the former
inhabitants are so poorly documented
that information about their lifeways
is best obtained from examination of
the material remains.
Eligible
• Data such as the rate of adop-
tion of modern technological
innovations by rural tenant
farmers in the 1950s may not
be obtainable through inter-
views with living persons but
could be gained by examina-
tion of homesites.
Not Eligible
• A recent archeological site
such as the remains of a
Navajo sheep corral used in
the 1950s would not be consid-
ered exceptionally significant
for its information potential on
animal husbandry if better in-
formation on the same topic is
available through ethno-
graphic studies or living infor-
mants.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Properties which have achieved
significance within the past fifty years
can be eligible for the National
Register if they are an integral part of
a district which qualifies for National
Register listing. This is demonstrated
by documenting that the property
dates from within the district's
defined Period of Significance and
that it is associated with one or more
of the district's defined Areas of
Significance.
Properties less than fifty years old
may be an integral part of a district
when there is sufficient perspective to
consider the properties as historic.
This is accomplished by demonstrat-
ing that: 1) the district's Period of
Significance is justified as a discrete
period with a defined beginning and
end, 2) the character of the district's
historic resources is clearly defined
and assessed, 3) specific resources in
the district are demonstrated to date
from that discrete era, and 4) the
majority of district properties are over
fifty years old. In these instances, it is
not necessary to prove exceptional
importance of either the district itself
or the less-than-fifty-year-old proper-
ties. Exceptional importance still
must be demonstrated for district
where the majority of properties or
the major Period of Significance is less
than fifty years old, and for less-than-
fifty-year-old properties which are
nominated individually.
PROPERTIES MORE THAN
FIFTY YEARS IN AGE, LESS
THAN FIFTY YEARS IN
SIGNIFICANCE
Properties that are more than fifty
years old, but whose significant
associations or qualities are less than
fifty years old, must be treated under
the fifty year consideration.
Eligible
• A building constructed early
in the twentieth century (and
having no architectural impor-
tance), but that was associated
with an important person
during the 1950s, must be
evaluated under Criteria Con-
sideration G because the Pe-
riod of Significance is within
the past fifty years. Such a
property would qualify if the
person was of exceptional im-
portance.
REQUIREMENT TO MEET
THE CRITERIA,
REGARDLESS OF AGE
Properties that are less than fifty
years old and are not exceptionally
important will not automatically
qualify for the National Register once
they are fifty years old. In order to be
listed in the National Register, all
properties, regardless of age, must be
demonstrated to meet the Criteria for
Evaluation.
43
VIII. HOW TO EVALUATE THE
INTEGRITY OF A PROPERTY
INTRODUCTION
Integrity is the ability of a prop-
erty to convey its significance. To be
listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, a property must not
only be shown to be significant under
the National Register criteria, but it
also must have integrity. The evalua-
tion of integrity is sometimes a
subjective judgment, but it must
always be grounded in an under-
standing of a property's physical
features and how they relate to its
significance.
Historic properties either retain
integrity (this is, convey their signifi-
cance) or they do not. Within the
concept of integrity, the National
Register criteria recognizes seven
aspects or qualities that, in various
combinations, define integrity.
To retain historic integrity a
property will always possess several,
and usually most, of the aspects. The
retention of specific aspects of integ-
rity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance. Determining
which of these aspects are most
important to a particular property
requires knowing why, where, and
when the property is significant. The
following sections define the seven
aspects and explain how they com-
bine to produce integrity.
SEVEN ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
• Location
• Design
• Setting
• Materials
• Workmanship
• Feeling
• Association
UNDERSTANDING
THE ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
LOCATION
Location is the place where the
historic property was constructed or
the place where the historic event
occurred. The relationship between
the property and its location is often
important to understanding why the
property was created or why some-
thing happened. The actual location
of a historic property, complemented
by its setting, is particularly important
in recapturing the sense of historic
events and persons. Except in rare
cases, the relationship between a
property and its historic associations
is destroyed if the property is moved.
(See Criteria Consideration B in Part
VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider-
ations, for the conditions under which
a moved property can be eligible.)
DESIGN
Design is the combination of
elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a
property. It results from conscious
decisions made during the original
conception and planning of a prop-
erty (or its significant alteration) and
applies to activities as diverse as
community planning, engineering,
architecture, and landscape architec-
ture. Design includes such elements
as organization of space, proportion,
scale, technology, ornamentation, and
materials.
A property's design reflects historic
functions and technologies as well as
aesthetics. It includes such consider-
ations as the structural system;
massing; arrangement of spaces;
pattern of fenestration; textures and
colors of surface materials; type,
amount, and style of ornamental
detailing; and arrangement and type
of plantings in a designed landscape.
Design can also apply to districts,
whether they are important primarily
for historic association, architectural
value, information potential, or a
combination thereof. For districts
significant primarily for historic
association or architectural value,
design concerns more than just the
individual buildings or structures
located within the boundaries. It also
applies to the way in which buildings,
sites, or structures are related: for
example, spatial relationships be-
tween major features; visual rhythms
in a streetscape or landscape
plantings; the layout and materials of
walkways and roads; and the relation-
ship of other features, such as statues,
water fountains, and archeological
sites.
44
SETTING
Setting is the physical environ-
ment of a historic property. Whereas
location refers to the specific place
where a property was built or an event
occurred, setting refers to the character
of the place in which the property
played its historical role. It involves
how, not just where, the property is
situated and its relationship to sur-
rounding features and open space.
Setting often reflects the basic
physical conditions under which a
property was built and the functions it
was intended to serve. In addition,
the way in which a property is posi-
tioned in its environment can reflect
the designer's concept of nature and
aesthetic preferences.
The physical features that constitute
the setting of a historic property can
be either natural or manmade, includ-
ing such elements as:
• Topographic features (a gorge or
the crest of a hill);
• Vegetation;
• Simple manmade features (paths
or fences); and
• Relationships between buildings
and other features or open space.
These features and their relation-
ships should be examined not only
within the exact boundaries of the
property, but also between the prop-
erty and its surroundings. This is
particularly important for districts.
MATERIALS
Materials are the physical ele-
ments that were combined or depos-
ited during a particular period of
time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic
property. The choice and combination
of materials reveal the preferences of
those who created the property and
indicate the availability of particular
types of materials and technologies.
Indigenous materials are often the
focus of regional building traditions
and thereby help define an area's
sense of time and place.
A property must retain the key
exterior materials dating from the
period of its historic significance. If
the property has been rehabilitated,
the historic materials and significant
features must have been preserved.
The property must also be an actual
historic resource, not a recreation; a
recent structure fabricated to look
historic is not eligible. Likewise, a
property whose historic features and
materials have been lost and then
reconstructed is usually not eligible.
(See Criteria Consideration E in Part
VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider-
ations for the conditions under which
a reconstructed property can be
eligible.)
WORKMANSHIP
Workmanship is the physical
evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. It is
the evidence of artisans' labor and
skill in constructing or altering a
building, structure, object, or site.
Workmanship can apply to the
property as a whole or to its indi-
vidual components. It can be ex-
pressed in vernacular methods of
construction and plain finishes or in
highly sophisticated configurations
and ornamental detailing. It can be
based on common traditions or
innovative period techniques.
Workmanship is important because
it can furnish evidence of the technol-
ogy of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic
principles of a historic or prehistoric
period, and reveal individual, local,
regional, or national applications of
both technological practices and
aesthetic principles. Examples of
workmanship in historic buildings
include tooling, carving, painting,
graining, turning, and joinery. Ex-
amples of workmanship in prehistoric
contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis
projectile points; Archaic period
beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone
pipes; copper earspools and worked
bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy
pipes.
FEELING
Feeling is a property's expression
of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time. It results
from the presence of physical features
that, taken together, convey the
property's historic character. For
example, a rural historic district
retaining original design, materials,
workmanship, and setting will relate
the feeling of agricultural life in the
19th century. A grouping of prehis-
toric petroglyphs, unmarred by
graffiti and intrusions and located on
its original isolated bluff, can evoke a
sense of tribal spiritual life.
ASSOCIATION
Association is the direct link
between an important historic event
or person and a historic property. A
property retains association if it is the
place where the event or activity
occurred and is sufficiently intact to
convey that relationship to an ob-
server. Like feeling, association
requires the presence of physical
features that convey a property's
historic character. For example, a
Revolutionary War battlefield whose
natural and manmade elements have
remained intact since the 18th century
will retain its quality of association
with the battle.
Because feeling and association
depend on individual perceptions,
their retention alone is never sufficient
to support eligibility of a property for
the National Register.
ASSESSING
INTEGRITY IN
PROPERTIES
Integrity is based on significance:
why, where, and when a property is
important. Only after significance is
fully established can you proceed to
the issue of integrity.
The steps in assessing integrity are:
• Define the essential physical fea-
tures that must be present for a
property to represent its signifi-
cance.
• Determine whether the essential
physical features are visible
enough to convey their signifi-
cance.
• Determine whether the property
needs to be compared with simi-
lar properties. And,
• Determine, based on the signifi-
cance and essential physical fea-
tures, which aspects of integrity
are particularly vital to the prop-
erty being nominated and if they
are present.
Ultimately, the question of integ-
rity is answered by whether or not the
property retains the identity for
which it is significant.
45
DEFINING THE ESSENTIAL
PHYSICAL FEATURES
All properties change over time. It
is not necessary for a property to
retain all its historic physical features
or characteristics. The property must
retain, however, the essential physical
features that enable it to convey its
historic identity. The essential
physical features are those features
that define both why a property is
significant (Applicable Criteria and
Areas of Significance) and when it was
significant (Periods of Significance).
They are the features without which a
property can no longer be identified
as, for instance, a late 19th century
dairy barn or an early 20th century
commercial district.
CRITERIA A AND B
A property that is significant for its
historic association is eligible if it
retains the essential physical features
that made up its character or appear-
ance during the period of its associa-
tion with the important event, histori-
cal pattern, or person(s). If the
property is a site (such as a treaty site)
where there are no material cultural
remains, the setting must be intact.
Archeological sites eligible under
Criteria A and B must be in overall
good condition with excellent preser-
vation of features, artifacts, and
spatial relationships to the extent that
these remains are able to convey
important associations with events or
persons.
CRITERION C
A property important for illustrat-
ing a particular architectural style or
construction technique must retain
most of the physical features that
constitute that style or technique. A
property that has lost some historic
materials or details can be eligible if it
retains the majority of the features
that illustrate its style in terms of the
massing, spatial relationships, propor-
tion, pattern of windows and doors,
texture of materials, and ornamenta-
tion. The property is not eligible,
however, if it retains some basic
features conveying massing but has
lost the majority of the features that
once characterized its style.
Archeological sites eligible under
Criterion C must be in overall good
condition with excellent preservation
of features, artifacts, and spatial
relationships to the extent that these
remains are able to illustrate a site
type, time period, method of construc-
tion, or work of a master.
CRITERION D
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, including archeological
sites and standing structures studied
for their information potential, less
attention is given to their overall
condition, than it they were being
considered under Criteria A, B, or C.
Archeological sites, in particular, do
not exist today exactly as they were
formed. There are always cultural
and natural processes that alter the
deposited materials and their spatial
relationships.
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, integrity is based upon
the property's potential to yield
specific data that addresses important
research questions, such as those
identified in the historic context
documentation in the Statewide
Comprehensive Preservation Plan or
in the research design for projects
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Archeological Documenta-
tion.
INTERIORS
Some historic buildings are virtu-
ally defined by their exteriors, and
their contribution to the built environ-
ment can be appreciated even if their
interiors are not accessible. Examples
of this would include early examples
of steel-framed skyscraper construc-
tion. The great advance in American
technology and engineering made by
these buildings can be read from the
outside. The change in American
popular taste during the 19th century,
from the symmetry and simplicity of
architectural styles based on classical
precedents, to the expressions of High
Victorian styles, with their combina-
tion of textures, colors, and asym-
metrical forms, is readily apparent
from the exteriors of these buildings.
Other buildings "are" interiors.
The Cleveland Arcade, that soaring
19th century glass-covered shopping
area, can only be appreciated from the
inside. Other buildings in this
category would be the great covered
train sheds of the 19th century.
In some cases the loss of an interior
will disqualify properties from listing
in the National Register—a historic
concert hall noted for the beauty of its
auditorium and its fine acoustic
qualities would be the type of prop-
erty that if it were to lose its interior,
it would lose its value as a historic
resource. In other cases, the over-
arching significance of a property's
exterior can overcome the adverse
effect of the loss of an interior.
In borderline cases particular
attention is paid to the significance of
the property and the remaining
historic features.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS
For a district to retain integrity as a
whole, the majority of the compo-
nents that make up the district's
historic character must possess
integrity even if they are individually
undistinguished. In addition, the
relationships among the district's
components must be substantially
unchanged since the period of signifi-
cance.
When evaluating the impact of
intrusions upon the district's integ-
rity, take into consideration the
relative number, size, scale, design,
and location of the components that
do not contribute to the significance.
A district is not eligible if it contains
so many alterations or new intrusions
that it no longer conveys the sense of
a historic environment.
A component of a district cannot
contribute to the significance if:
• it has been substantially altered
since the period of the district's
significance or
• it does not share the historic asso-
ciations of the district.
VISIBILITY OF PHYSICAL
FEATURES
Properties eligible under Criteria
A, B, and C must not only retain their
essential physical features, but the
features must be visible enough to
convey their significance. This means
that even if a property is physically
intact, its integrity is questionable if
its significant features are concealed
under modern construction. Archeo-
logical properties are often the
exception to this; by nature they
usually do not require visible features
to convey their significance.
46
NON-HISTORIC EXTERIORS SUNKEN VESSELS
If the historic exterior building
material is covered by non-historic
material (such as modern siding), the
property can still be eligible if the
significant form, features, and detail-
ing are not obscured. If a property's
exterior is covered by a non-historic
false-front or curtain wall, the prop-
erty will not qualify under Criteria A,
B, or C, because it does not retain the
visual quality necessary to convey
historic or architectural significance.
Such a property also cannot be
considered a contributing element in a
historic district, because it does not
add to the district's sense of time and
place. If the false front, curtain wall,
or non-historic siding is removed and
the original building materials are
intact, then the property's integrity
can be re-evaluated.
PROPERTY CONTAINED
WITHIN ANOTHER
PROPERTY
Some properties contain an earlier
structure that formed the nucleus for
later construction. The exterior
property, if not eligible in its own
right, can qualify on the basis of the
interior property only if the interior
property can yield significant infor-
mation about a specific construction
technique or material, such as
rammed earth or tabby. The interior
property cannot be used as the basis
for eligibility if it has been so altered
that it no longer contains the features
that could provide important infor-
mation, or if the presence of impor-
tant information cannot be demon-
strated.
A sunken vessel can be eligible
under Criterion C as embodying the
distinctive characteristics of a method
of construction if it is structurally
intact. A deteriorated sunken vessel,
no longer structurally intact, can be
eligible under Criterion D if the
remains of either the vessel or its
contents is capable of yielding signifi-
cant information. For further infor-
mation, refer to National Register
Bulletin: Nominating Historic Vessels
and Shipwrecks to the National Register
of Historic Places.
Natural Features
A natural feature that is associated
with a historic event or trend, such as
a rock formation that served as a trail
marker during westward expansion,
must retain its historic appearance,
unobscured by modern construction
or landfill. Otherwise it is not eli-
gible, even though it remains intact.
COMPARING SIMILAR
PROPERTIES
For some properties, comparison
with similar properties should be
considered during the evaluation of
integrity. Such comparison may be
important in deciding what physical
features are essential to properties of
that type. In instances where it has
not been determined what physical
features a property must possess in
order for it to reflect the significance
of a historic context, comparison with
similar properties should be under-
taken during the evaluation of integ-
rity. This situation arises when
scholarly work has not been done on a
particular property type or when
surviving examples of a property type
are extremely rare. (See Comparing
Related Properties in Part V: How to
Evaluate a Property within its Historic
Context.)
RARE EXAMPLES OF A
PROPERTY TYPE
Comparative information is
particularly important to consider
when evaluating the integrity of a
property that is a rare surviving
example of its type. The property
must have the essential physical
features that enable it to convey its
historic character or information. The
rarity and poor condition, however, of
other extant examples of the type may
justify accepting a greater degree of
alteration or fewer features, provided
that enough of the property survives
for it to be a significant resource.
Eligible
• A one-room schoolhouse that
has had all original exterior
siding replaced and a replace-
ment roof that does not exactly
replicate the original roof pro-
file can be eligible if the other
extant rare examples have re-
ceived an even greater degree
of alteration, such as the sub-
division of the original one-
room plan.
Not Eligible
• A mill site contains informa-
tion on how site patterning re-
flects historic functional re-
quirements, but parts of the
site have been destroyed. The
site is not eligible for its infor-
mation potential if a compari-
son of other mill sites reveals
more intact properties with
complete information.
47
DETERMINING THE
RELEVANT ASPECTS OF
INTEGRITY
Each type of property depends on
certain aspects of integrity, more than
others, to express its historic signifi-
cance. Determining which of the
aspects is most important to a particu-
lar property requires an understand-
ing of the property's significance and
its essential physical features.
CRITERIA A AND B
A property important for associa-
tion with an event, historical pattern,
or person(s) ideally might retain some
features of all seven aspects of integ-
rity: location, design, setting, materi-
als, workmanship, feeling, and
association. Integrity of design and
workmanship, however, might not be
as important to the significance, and
would not be relevant if the property
were a site. A basic integrity test for a
property associated with an important
event or person is whether a historical
contemporary would recognize the
property as it exists today.
For archeological sites that are
eligible under Criteria A and B, the
seven aspects of integrity can be
applied in much the same way as they
are to buildings, structures, or objects.
It is important to note, however, that
the site must have demonstrated its
ability to convey its significance, as
opposed to sites eligible under Crite-
rion D where only the potential to
yield information is required.
Eligible
A mid-19th century waterpowered
mill important for its association
with an area's industrial develop-
ment is eligible if:
• it is still on its original site
(Location), and
• the important features of its
setting are intact (Setting), and
• it retains most of its historic
materials (Materials), and
• it has the basic features expres-
sive of its design and function,
such as configuration, propor-
tions, and window pattern
(Design).
Not Eligible
A mid-19th century water-
powered mill important for its
association with an area's indus-
trial development is not eligible
if:
• it has been moved (Location,
Setting, Feeling, and Associa-
tion), or
• substantial amounts of new
materials have been incorpo-
rated (Materials, Workman-
ship, and Feeling), or
• it no longer retains basic de-
sign features that convey its
historic appearance or
function (Design, Workman-
ship, and Feeling).
CRITERION C
A property significant under
Criterion C must retain those physi-
cal features that characterize the type,
period, or method of construction that
the property represents. Retention of
design, workmanship, and materials
will usually be more important than
location, setting, feeling, and associa-
tion. Location and setting will be
important, however, for those proper-
ties whose design is a reflection of
their immediate environment (such as
designed landscapes and bridges).
For archeological sites that are
eligible under Criterion C, the seven
aspects of integrity can be applied in
much the same way as they are to
buildings, structures, or objects. It is
important to note, however, that the
site must have demonstrated its ability
to convey its significance, as opposed
to sites eligible under Criterion D
where only the potential to yield
information is required.
Eligible
A 19th century wooden covered
bridge, important for illustrating
a construction type, is eligible if:
• the essential features of its de-
sign are intact, such as abut-
ments, piers, roof configura-
tion, and trusses (Design,
Workmanship, and Feeling),
and
• most of the historic materials
are present (Materials, Work-
manship, and Feeling), and
• evidence of the craft of
wooden bridge technology re-
mains, such as the form and
assembly technique of the
trusses (Workmanship).
• Since the design of a bridge re-
lates directly to its function as
a transportation crossing, it is
also important that the bridge
still be situated over a water-
way (Setting, Location, Feel-
ing, and Association).
Not Eligible
For a 19th century wooden cov-
ered bridge, important for its
construction type, replacement
of some materials of the flooring,
siding, and roofing would not
necessarily damage its integrity.
Integrity would be lost, however,
if:
• the abutments, piers, or trusses
were substantially altered (De-
sign, Workmanship, and Feel-
ing) or
• considerable amounts of new
materials were incorporated
(Materials, Workmanship,
and Feeling).
• Because environment is a
strong factor in the design of
this property type, the bridge
would also be ineligible if it no
longer stood in a place that
conveyed its function as a
crossing (Setting, Location,
Feeling, and Association).
48
CRITERION D
For properties eligible under
Criterion D, setting and feeling may
not have direct bearing on the
property's ability to yield important
information. Evaluation of integrity
probably will focus primarily on the
location, design, materials, and
perhaps workmanship.
Eligible
A multicomponent prehistoric
site important for yielding data
on changing subsistence patterns
can be eligible if:
• floral or faunal remains are
found in clear association with
cultural material (Materials
and Association) and
• the site exhibits stratigraphic
separation of cultural compo-
nents (Location).
Not Eligible
A multicomponent prehistoric
site important for yielding data
on changing subsistence patterns
would not be eligible if:
• floral or faunal remains were
so badly decomposed as to
make identification impossible
(Materials), or
• floral or faunal remains were
disturbed in such a manner as
to make their association with
cultural remains ambiguous
(Association), or
• the site has lost its strati-
graphic context due to subse-
quent land alterations
(Location).
Eligible
A lithic scatter site important for
yielding data on lithic technology
during the Late Archaic period
can be eligible if:
• the site contains lithic
debitage, finished stone tools,
hammerstones, or antler
flakers (Material and Design),
and
• the site contains datable mate-
rial (Association).
Not Eligible
A lithic scatter site important for
yielding data on lithic technology
during the Late Archaic period
would not be eligible if:
• the site contains natural de-
posits of lithic materials that
are impossible to distinguish
from culturally modified lithic
material (Design) or
• the site does not contain any
temporal diagnostic evidence
that could link the site to the
Late Archaic period (Associa-
tion).
49
IX. SUMMARY OF THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC
LANDMARKS CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
A property being nominated to the
National Register may also merit
consideration for potential designa-
tion as a National Historic Landmark.
Such consideration is dependent upon
the stringent application of the
following distinct set of criteria
(found in the Code of Federal Regula-
tions, Title 36, Part 65).
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
CRITERIA
The quality of national significance
is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess
exceptional value or quality in illus-
trating or interpreting the heritage of
the United States in history, architec-
ture, archeology, engineering, and
culture and that possess a high degree
of integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:
1. That are associated with events
that have made a significant con-
tribution to, and are identified
with, or that outstandingly repre-
sent, the broad national patterns
of United States history and from
which an understanding and ap-
preciation of those patterns may
be gained; or
2. That are associated importantly
with the lives of persons nation-
ally significant in the history of
the United States; or
3. That represent some great idea
or ideal of the American people;
or
4. That embody the distinguishing
characteristics of an architectural
type specimen exceptionally
valuable for a study of a period,
style or method of construction,
or that represent a significant,
distinctive and exceptional entity
whose components may lack in-
dividual distinction; or
5. That are composed of integral
parts of the environment not suf-
ficiently significant by reason of
historical association or artistic
merit to warrant individual rec-
ognition but collectively compose
an entity of exceptional historical
or artistic significance, or out-
standingly commemorate or il-
lustrate a way of life or culture;
or
6. That have yielded or may be
likely to yield information of ma-
jor scientific importance by re-
vealing new cultures, or by shed-
ding light upon periods of occu-
pation over large areas of the
United States. Such sites are
those which have yielded, or
which may reasonably be ex-
pected to yield, data affecting
theories, concepts and ideas to a
major degree.
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARK
EXCLUSIONS
Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces,
graves of historical figures, properties
owned by religious institutions or
used for religious purposes, structures
that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings and properties that
have achieved significance within the
past fifty years are not eligible for des-
ignation. If such properties fall
within the following categories they
may, nevertheless, be found to
qualify:
1. A religious property deriving its
primary national significance
from architectural or artistic dis-
tinction or historical importance;
or
2. A building or structure removed
from its original location but
which is nationally significant
primarily for its architectural
merit, or for association with per-
sons or events of transcendent
importance in the nation's his-
tory and the association conse-
quential; or
3. A site of a building or structure
no longer standing but the per-
son or event associated with it is
of transcendent importance in the
nations's history and the associa-
tion consequential; or
50
4. A birthplace, grave or burial if it
is of a historical figure of tran-
scendent national significance
and no other appropriate site,
building, or structure directly as-
sociated with the productive life
of that person exists; or
5. A cemetery that derives its pri-
mary national significance from
graves of persons of transcendent
importance, or from an exception-
ally distinctive design or an ex-
ceptionally significant event; or
6. A reconstructed building or en-
semble o^ buildings of extraordi-
nary national significance when
accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a res-
toration master plan, and when
no other buildings or structures
with the same association have
survived; or
7. A property primarily commemo-
rative in intent if design, age, tra-
dition, or symbolic value has in-
vested it with its own national
historical significance; or
8. A property achieving national
significance within the past 50
years if it is of extraordinary na-
tional importance.
COMPARING THE
NATIONAL
HISTORIC
LANDMARKS
CRITERIA AND THE
NATIONAL
REGISTER
CRITERIA
In general, the instructions for
preparing a National Register nomina-
tion and the guidelines stated in this
bulletin for applying the National
Register Criteria also apply to Land-
mark nominations and the use of the
Landmark criteria. While there are
specific distinctions discussed below,
Parts IV and V of this bulletin apply
equally to National Register listings
and Landmark nominations. That is,
the categories of historic properties are
defined the same way; historic con-
texts are identified similarly; and
comparative evaluation is carried out
on the same principles enumerated in
Part V.
There are some differences between
National Register and National
Historic Landmarks Criteria. The
following is an explanation of how
each Landmark Criterion compares
with its National Register Criteria
counterpart:
CRITERION 1
This Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion A. Both cover
properties associated with events.
The Landmark Criterion, however,
requires that the events associated
with the property be outstandingly
represented by that property and that
the property be related to the broad
national patterns of U.S. history.
Thus, the quality of the property to
convey and interpret its meaning
must be of a higher order and must
relate to national themes rather than
the narrower context of State or local
themes.
CRITERION 2
This Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion B. Both cover
properties associated with significant
people. The Landmark Criterion
differs in that it specifies that the
association of a person to the property
in question be an important one and
that the person associated with the
property be of national significance.
CRITERION 3
This Criterion has no counterpart
among the National Register Criteria.
It is rarely, if ever, used alone. While
not a landmark at present, the Liberty
Bell is an object that might be consid-
ered under this Criterion. The appli-
cation of this Criterion obviously
requires the most careful scrutiny and
would apply only in rare instances
involving ideas and ideals of the
highest order.
CRITERION 4
This Criterion relates to National
Register Criterion C. Its intent is to
qualify exceptionally important works
of architecture or collective elements
of architecture extraordinarily signifi-
cant as an ensemble, such as a historic
district. Note that the language is
more restrictive than that of the
National Register Criterion in requir-
ing that a candidate in architecture be
"a specimen exceptionally valuable for
the study of a period, style, or method
of construction" rather than simply
embodying distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of con-
struction. With regard to historic
districts, the Landmarks Criterion
requires an entity that is distinctive
and exceptional. Unlike National
Register Criterion C, this Criterion will
not qualify the works of a master, per
se, but only such works which are
exceptional or extraordinary. Artistic
value is considered only in the context
of history's judgement in order to
avoid current conflicts of taste.
CRITERION 5
This Criterion does not have a strict
counterpart among the National
Register Criteria. It may seem redun-
dant of the latter part of Landmark
Criterion 4. It is meant to cover
collective entities such as Greenfield
Village and historic districts like New
Bedford, Massachusetts, which qualify
for their collective association with a
nationally significant event, move-
ment, or broad pattern of national
development.
CRITERION 6
The National Register counterpart
of this is Criterion D. Criterion 6 was
developed specifically to recognize
archeological sites. All such sites must
address this Criterion. The following
are the qualifications that distinguish
this Criterion from its National Regis-
ter counterpart: the information
yielded or likely to be yielded must be
of major scientific importance by
revealing new cultures, or by shedding
light upon periods of occupation over
large areas of the United States. Such
sites should be expected to yield data
affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a
major degree.
The data recovered or expected to
be recovered must make a major
contribution to the existing corpus of
information. Potentially recoverable
data must be likely to revolutionize or
substantially modify a major theme in
history or prehistory, resolve a sub-
stantial historical or anthropological
debate, or close a serious gap in a
major theme of U. S. history or prehis-
tory.
51
EXCLUSIONS AND
EXCEPTIONS TO
THE EXCLUSIONS
This section of the National His-
toric Landmarks Criteria has its
counterpart in the National Register's
"Criteria Considerations/' The most
abundant difference between them is
the addition of the qualifiers "na-
tional," "exceptional," or "extraordi-
nary" before the word significance.
Other than this, the following are the
most notable distinctions:
EXCLUSION 2
Buildings moved from their
original location, qualify only if one of
two conditions are met: 1) the build-
ing is nationally significant for
architecture, or 2) the persons or
events with which they are associated
are of transcendent national signifi-
cance and the association is conse-
quential.
Transcendent significance means
an order of importance higher than
that which would ordinarily qualify a
person or event to be nationally
significant. A consequential associa-
tion is a relationship to a building that
had an evident impact on events,
rather than a connection that was
incidental and passing.
EXCLUSION 3
This pertains to the site of a struc-
ture no longer standing. There is no
counterpart to this exclusion in the
National Register Criteria. In order
for such a property to qualify for
Landmark designation it must meet
the second condition cited for Exclu-
sion 2.
EXCLUSION 4
This exclusion relates to Criteria
Consideration C of the National
Register Criteria. The only difference
is that a burial place qualifies for
Landmark designation only if, in
addition to other factors, the person
buried is of transcendent national
importance.
When evaluating properties at the
national level for designation as a
National Historic Landmark, please
refer to the National Historic Land-
marks outline, History and Prehistory
in the National Park System and the
National Historic Landmarks Program,
1987. (For more information about
the National Historic Landmarks
program, please write to Department
of the Interior, National Park Service,
National Historic Landmarks, 1849 C
Street, NW, NC400, Washington, DC
20240.)
52
X. GLOSSARY
Associative Qualities - An aspect of a
property's history that links it with
historic events, activities, or
persons.
Code of Federal Regulations -
Commonly referred to as "CFR."
The part containing the National
Register Criteria is usually referred
to as 36 CFR 60, and is available
from the National Park Service.
CLG - Certified Local Government.
Culture - A group of people linked
together by shared values, beliefs,
and historical associations, together
with the group's social institutions
and physical objects necessary to
the operation of the institution.
Cultural Resource - See Historic
Resource.
Evaluation - Process by which the
significance and integrity of a
historic property are judged and
eligibility for National Register
listing is determined.
Historic Context - An organizing
structure for interpreting history
that groups information about
historic properties that share a
common theme, common geo-
graphical area, and a common time
period. The development of
historic contexts is a foundation for
decisions about the planning,
identification, evaluation, registra-
tion, and treatment of historic
properties, based upon compara-
tive historic significance.
Historic Integrity - The unimpaired
ability of a property to convey its
historical significance.
Historic Property - See Historic
Resource.
Historic Resource - Building, site,
district, object, or structure evalu-
ated as historically significant.
Identification - Process through
which information is gathered
about historic properties.
Listing - The formal entry of a prop-
erty in the National Register of
Historic Places. See also, Registra-
tion.
Nomination - Official recommenda-
tion for listing a property in the
National Register of Historic
Places.
Property Type - A grouping o^
properties defined by common
physical and associative attributes.
Registration - Process by which a
historic property is documented
and nominated or determined
eligible for listing in the National
Register.
Research Design - A statement of
proposed identification, documen-
tation, investigation, or other
treatment of a historic property
that identifies the project's goals,
methods and techniques, expected
results, and the relationship of the
expected results to other proposed
activities or treatments.
53
XL LIST OF NATIONAL
REGISTER BULLETINS
The Basics
How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation *
Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form
Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form *
Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form *
Researching a Historic Property *
Property Types
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation *
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields
Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties
Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places
How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes *
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites
How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices *
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years *
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes *
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties *
Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places
Technical Assistance
Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties*
Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning *
How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations
National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation *
Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites
To order these publications, write to: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NC 400, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240, or
e-mail at: nr_reference@nps.gov. Publications marked with an asterisk (*) are also available in electronic form at www.cr.nps.gov/nr.
,_ . o U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005—717-788
Jeffrey Sturges
171 Pier Avenue, No. 408
Santa Monica, CA 90405
gyroscopic@icloud.com
Mr. Steve Mizokami
Senior Planner
Landmarks Commission Liaison
City of Santa Monica
steve.mizokami@smgov.net
RE: Supplemental Information for Proposed 4th Street District
February 20, 2019
Dear Steve:
Thank you for your dedication to sustaining the civic integrity of Santa Monica.
This letter supports Historic District Designation Application #18ENT-0356, filed by the
Santa Monica Conservancy. The proposed District comprises fourteen period structures
on five parcels at the two north corners of Fourth Street and Ocean Park Boulevard.
The meticulous research in this Application proves that the structures in the proposed
District date from the 1890’s all the way until the most recent (1936). Evoking the
decades between Santa Monica’s founding as an independent city and its rise as a beach
resort suburb within the growing sprawl of greater Los Angeles, these structures form an
unbroken, fully intact cluster that is highly unusual. All of these structures are listed in the
Historic Resources Inventory. While a few have been slightly improved, no conjectural
design license has been taken. The structures all remain exactly as they were built.
In addition to powerfully commemorating Santa Monica’s origins via their integrity, the
proposed District’s setting and structures capture a more recent but equally significant
era. A critical feature of the proposed District is the 1960’s “incursion”, referenced in the
application, of the freeway-style bridge over the widened Ocean Park Boulevard, and the
contemporaneous widening of Fourth Street by the taking of twelve feet of front yards.
This incursion augments the historical value of the proposed District by connecting it to a
key era that we are only just beginning to appreciate—the advent of skateboarding.
Carving a Herculean chunk out of the neighborhood, this incursion, with its four vast
graded ramps and its bridge over Ocean Park Boulevard, adds glorious public views from
its overpass and an unexpected jolt of freeway-style grandeur to the intimate scale of the
one and two-story houses surrounding it. The contrast between these tiny gabled cottages
and the epic scale of the ramp exemplifies the central development dialectic of the 20th
century, when the sweeping, car-centric reshaping of cities inspired by Robert Moses
both ignited and challenged the civic preservation movement pioneered by Jane Jacobs.
The view from the Fourth Street overpass, looking down at the dizzying drop to Ocean
Park Boulevard below, out to the entire bay and then to the small-scale, friendly houses
running down the ramps on either side of the widened boulevard, embodies the clash
between Moses and Jacobs like few other sites. Here this clash creates a fusion, with the
intimate scale of the one-story structures in the proposed District parrying the grandeur of
their setting on the ramp. Emerging from this fusion of Moses and Jacobs was their civic
stepchild—the movement that added wheels to pedestrians in the form of skateboarding.
The proposed District’s matched pair of intricately crafted one-story mission revival
structures that flank Fourth Street, and its three gabled surfer cottages descending the
Ocean Park Boulevard ramp, are just the kind of simple structures that housed the
pioneers of skateboarding. The steep, smoothly graded highway ramp along which the
structures sit was the perfect testing ground for the latest skateboarding innovations.
These structures are Santa Monica’s equivalent to the Silicon Valley garages that fostered
the invention of computers. Skateboarding and computers both became world forces:
their origins both deserve the permanent recognition afforded by a Historic District.
Just as important as the proposed District’s connection to the advent of skateboarding is
its immense success as a singular form of public park. The surrounding neighborhood has
been strong enough to heal around the “wound” of this incursion and turn it into a
showpiece. Visitors from nearby and around the world treat this freeway overpass as a
destination so they can enjoy and photograph its magnificent views. Critical to the beauty
of these views is the contrast in scale between the vastness of the bay and the overpass
itself and the intimacy of the period structures that frame the bay views on every side.
Widely visible from a distance due to the overpass, the mission revival structures and
gabled cottages of the proposed District are becoming akin to San Francisco’s famous
Victorian “painted ladies”—an international icon that evokes our city’s rich past.
I submit that the proposed District’s signal stylistic feature is the brilliant clash between
its cozy enclave of intact historic structures and the spectacular sweep of the Ocean Park
overpass incursion that frames them. Titling the proposed District The Ocean Park
Ramp District would commemorate not only the era of skateboarding, but also the
success of our Jane Jacobs neighborhood in contending with this Robert Moses incursion.
I hope the commissioners will agree that the proposed District warrants inclusion as a
companion piece to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic district just a block down the
hill, and to the historic Shotgun House just two blocks away. Creating this triad of
preserved structures will ensure that Santa Monica’s past continues to enrich its future.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Sturges
From:Carol Lemlein
To:Dolores Sloan; Barry Rosenbaum; Richard Brand; Kenneth Breisch; Amy Beth Green; Roger Genser; Ruth Shari
Cc:Steve Mizokami; Stephanie Reich; Heidi von Tongeln; Wendy Radwan; ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com;
nina@freddycan.net
Subject:Item 10-A. Historic District application 18ENT-0356 (4th Street Corner District)
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 10:09:34 AM
Chair Sloan, Chair Pro-tem Rosenbaum, Commissioners and Staff,
The Santa Monica Conservancy was very surprised by the consultant’s
negative report on our district application, and we wanted to give you a
brief summary of the concerns we will be raising in tonight’s testimony.
· This group of 14 buildings on 5 parcels clearly meets the definition of a
historic district in the National Register and in the SM ordinance, neither of
which proposes any limitations due to size.
· The proposed district specifically represents the relatively rapid
development of this section of 4th Street subsequent to the extension
of what is now Ocean Park Boulevard to the west in 1917.
· Furthermore, the proposed district reflects the evolution of Ocean Park
residential development in the early 20th century with its variety of
architectural styles and modest scale.
Remarkably, this group of residential properties has remained intact to the
present day, despite the the streetscape reconfigurations of the
Redevelopment era beginning in the late 60s.
We will be asking for 20 minutes to present our rationale for the district
and the areas in which our research compels us to different conclusions
than those made by the consultants. The timelines in our preservation
ordinance provide 45 days from the initial public hearing until a decision
on the application must be made. We urge you to consider our testimony
and, if you cannot resolve any concerns and develop the necessary
findings in support of the district tonight, please ask for a continuance until
June to make that possible.
Finally, we note that once again this hearing was delayed to the last
possible date within the ordinance timelines, and the consultant's report
was not availible until 4 days before the hearing. Had the consultant's
report been available earlier, the hearing could have been scheduled as
soon as March or April (minimum 45 days after the January community
meeting). This would have allowed the Conservancy to request a
continuance to understand the consultant's objections without denying you
the possibility of a second meeting on the subject to deal with your own
concerns and finalize the findings on the application.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein, President
Santa Monica Conservancy Board of Directors
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90405
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
5D2
317 Ocean Park Blvd
Los Angeles
317 Ocean Park Blvd
APN(s): 4287008028
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
9/5/2007
2
Santa Monica
Circa 1923
Dowler,lilly Tr
Lilly Dowler Trust
143 Wadsworth Ave
Santa Monica Ca, 904050000
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 5D2. Also contributes under local Criterion A.1. This property does not appear to have
experienced substantial alterations since it was last surveyed. As a result, it continues to appear eligible for listing as a
contributor to the previously identified "2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District." Note: Previous surveys identified this
property as having 2528 4th Street, and 319 and 321 Ocean Park Boulevard addresses.
317 Ocean Park Blvd
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*317 Ocean Park Blvd
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Multiple Family Residence
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:Multiple Family Residence
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Residential DevelopmentTheme Santa MonicaArea
1923Period of Significance ResidentialProperty 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
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90405
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
5B
5D2
2506 4th St
Los Angeles
2506 4th St
APN(s): 4287008077
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
12/6/2007
2
Santa Monica
1906
Dubnoff,ena
2506 4th St
Santa Monica Ca, 904050000
P. Moruzzi, M. Potter, K. Lain
ICF International
811 W 7th Street, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
1
This site contains a bungalow court of six buildings. The court is composed of five one-story buildings grouped around a
central green area, with a two-story residence at the rear of the property. The site is notable for the architectural variety of the
buildings, including Craftsman bungalows, hipped roof cottage, and two story Monterey Revival style house. Siding appears to
be clapboard. Fenestration consists of original wood-framed windows of varying styles and sizes. The property features mature
trees and shrubs in addition to the central green space area.
A.4 - The property embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of
construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The resource is recorded in the Historic Resources Inventory with a prior
evaluation of 5D2. This bungalow court retains a high degree of integrity since the previous survey. It continues to appear
eligible as a contributor to the previously identified Ocean Park Bungalow Courts District. In addition, its uniqueness is
based upon the variety of architecturaly styles represented in an increasingly rare building cour type. For this reason, this
court appears individually eligible as a Santa Monica Local Landmark.
2506 4th St
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*2506 4th St
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Single Family Residence
Architectural Style:Craftsman
Construction History:
Moved?
Related Features:
Architect:
B1.
B2.
B3.B4.
*B5.
*B6.
*B7.
*B8.
B9a.
*B10.
B11.
*B12.
B13.
*B14.
Present Use:Single Family Residence
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Residential DevelopmentTheme 4, Santa MonicaArea
1906Period of Significance ResidentialProperty 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 5B 22
Page of Resource Name or #:
Recorded by: Date:
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
DPR 523L (1/95) HRG
2510 4th St
December 2007
1
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Survey
1
Address on Inventory:2510 4th St
Legal Address (Tax Assessor):2510 4th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Property Name:
UpdateContinuation
Alterations:Changes have been made to the property since it was last evaluated. The windows have been altered.
Updated Status Code:5B
Evaluation:The survey evaluated the resource on the property as falling under criterion A.4 - The property 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.
Historic District(s):Ocean Park Bungalow Courts
Prepared by:
City of Santa MonicaPrepared for:
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
Jones & Stokes
P. Moruzzi, M. Potter, K. Lain
ICF International
811 W 7th Street, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Description:The property contains a one-story single family residence, which was originally constructed as a multiple
family residence. It was designed in the Craftsman/Hipped Roof Cottage style. The resource is recorded in
the Historic Resources Inventory with a prior evaluation of 5D3. Also qualifies under local criterion A.1. This
grouping of dwellings situated in a cluster centered around a lush landscaped garden includes a Hipped Roof
Cottage, several modest Craftsman style dwellings, and a large two-story house with Craftsman influences.
This unusual cluster retains a high level of physical and historical integrity and, as such, appears eligible for
listing as a City of Santa Monica Landmark and also as a contributor to the previously identified "Ocean Park
Bungalow Courts District."
APN:4287008082
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90405
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
5D2
2518 4th St
Los Angeles
2518 4th St
APN(s): 4287008023
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
9/5/2007
2
Santa Monica
1936
Dowler,lilly Tr
Lilly Dowler Trust
143 Wadsworth Ave
Santa Monica Ca, 904050000
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 5D2. Also contributes under local Criterion A.1. This property does not appear to have
experienced substantial alterations since it was last surveyed. As a result, it continues to appear eligible for listing as a
contributor to the previously identified "2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District."
2518 4th St
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*2518 4th St
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Multiple Family Residence
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:Multiple Family Residence
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Residential DevelopmentTheme Santa MonicaArea
1936Period of Significance ResidentialProperty 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
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90405
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
5D2
2524 4th St
Los Angeles
2524 4th St
APN(s): 4287008024
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
9/5/2007
2
Santa Monica
1917
Dowler,lilly Tr
Lilly Dowler Trust
143 Wadsworth Ave
Santa Monica Ca, 904050000
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 5D2. Also contributes under local Criterion A.1. This property does not appear to have
experienced substantial alterations since it was last surveyed. As a result, it continues to appear eligible for listing as a
contributor to the previously identified "2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District."
2524 4th St
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*2524 4th St
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Multiple Family Residence
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:Multiple Family Residence
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Residential DevelopmentTheme Santa MonicaArea
1917Period of Significance ResidentialProperty 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
P5a. Photograph or Drawing
Zip 90405
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
5D2
2525 4th St
Los Angeles
2525 4th St
APN(s): 4287007001
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, prepared for City of Santa Monica by ICF Intl, 2010
Reconaissance-Level Survey
9/5/2007
2
Santa Monica
1922
Dowler,lilly Tr
Lilly Dowler Trust
143 Wadsworth Ave
Santa Monica Ca, 904050000
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 5D2. Also contributes under local Criterion A.1. This property does not appear to have
experienced substantial alterations since it was last surveyed. As a result, it continues to appear eligible for listing as a
contributor to the previously identified "2400-2500 Block of 4th Street District."
2525 4th St
None
None
Page of
Resource Name or #:*2525 4th St
*
Historic Name:
Common Name:
Original Use:Single Family Residence
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:Single Family Residence
(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations.)
No Yes Unknown Date:Original Location:
b. Builder:
Significance:Residential DevelopmentTheme Santa MonicaArea
1922Period of Significance ResidentialProperty 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
From:Robert Weinstein
To:Steve Mizokami
Subject:2500 block of 4th st.
Date:Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:21:19 PM
Steve, both my wife and I support making a Historic District of the 2500 block of 4th
Street.
Robert & Zvia Weinstein, 2412 4th St, SM 90405
From:David Auch
To:Steve Mizokami
Subject:2500 block of 4th street
Date:Saturday, June 29, 2019 7:02:35 PM
Hi Steve. What is status of the landmark designation for this block, 2500 of 4th Street? case 18ENT-0356.
Is it still possible to give comments, or is it a done deal one way or the other?
To cut to the chase, I don’t think it is fair to designate the properties as landmark if current properties owners do not
want it designated as such.
If the owners and city are in agreement, then I guess it’s fine. Any future buyer will go into it with eyes wide open,
and the property value may be lower because of the restrictions, but that will hurt most hurt the current owner that
supports it.
The property next to us, 417 ocean park was probably more historic given it was bungalow colony. fortunately the
owner worked with us and the renovation they did about 10 years back maintained the colony nature but at the same
time provided more room and enhancements.
While I sympathize with current tenants, the owner of the property should be able to nix landmark designation. It
seems to me the landmark status is potentially being used not to preserve landmark properties, but rather for
purposes of rent control or to restrict the rights of the landlord. I don’t feel that is right.
I read the application, which was very thoughtfully prepared and interesting. That said, living a couple doors away
from the properties, to be honest, I feel there is questionable historic nature of the properties. Alas, I’m not an
expert.
Thanks.
David Auch
2532 5th
310-989-2300
From:M.C. Fisher
To:Steve Mizokami
Subject:2500 Block of 4th Street (18ENT-0356) - Landmark Commission
Date:Thursday, June 20, 2019 11:29:46 AM
Dear Mr. Mizokami:
I was unable to attend the last meeting of June 10th concerning, among others, above referenced item.
Although I did attend the past ones, I was wondering if any progress has been made as to the designation of
Historic Landmark for the properties in question. I am a property owner (condo) in the building just north of
the 2525 4th Street property. For the past many years I have been living in that area, I have enjoyed the
low-key charm of that neighborhood and of course, would welcome a positive outcome as to the designation
of that area as a historical site! If you have any feedback or updates concerning above item, I would very
much appreciate it.
Thanking you in advance,
Sincerely,
Marie-Claude Fisher
2519 4th St. Apt 10
Santa Monica, CA 90405
From:Arlene Hopkins
To:Council Mailbox
Cc:Steve Mizokami
Subject:2nd Request to Approve /Re: Request to Approve: 4th Street Historic District
Date:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:49:46 AM
Attachments:image.png
Good day Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
On July 23 I urge that you please approve the Historic District Designation for the 2500
Block of 4th Street.
As a resident -- I have lived in this neighborhood for 35 years, and this block is integral to
the culture and context of this community.
As an architect and planner -- I very well understand the various arguments pro and con of
the historic designation. Fundamentally, this is a highly subjective issue, so it would be
wise to "to do harm" and, if necessary to "ere," to minimally do so.
As a former SM Planning Commissioner and as a licensed real estate salesperson -- I
understand the economic pressures applied by our own SM Planning Dept, and even our SM
Economic Development staff -- all of which result in disruption to community,
"gentrification" and worse.
Please protect our neighborhood by approving the 4th Street Historic District on 23 July.
Yours sincerely,
Arlene Hopkins
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:17 PM Arlene Hopkins <arlene.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
Good day Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I write to express my support for the proposed 4th Street Historic District.
I am a 3rd generation of the Santa Monica Bay area, and a 40 year resident of Santa
Monica. Further, as a founding member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, a local history
lover, an educator and an architect, I hold dear and very much value our historic
community buildings.
Our historic buildings maintain our local sense of community and historic continuity.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal for the 4th Street Historic District.
Yours truly,
Arlene Hopkins
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Charlotte Jepson <charlotte538france@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 10:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Fourth Street Corner Historic District must be conserved
I vote YES on creating a Fourth Street Corner Historic District. These historic buildings remind us of our SM heritage. Do
not allow them to be destroyed.
Charlotte Jepson
Item 6-A
07/23/19
35 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sherri Beissner <imjussayin3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 10:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:4th Street Corner Historic District
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a resident of Ocean Park for over 40 years and of 4th St. in particular for almost 25 years, the historic character of
much of the neighborhood is very important to me and I urge you to support the creation of the 4th Street Corner
Historic District in order to protect and preserve this particular area of Ocean Park.
Thanks‐
Sherri Beissner
2045 4th St., 302B
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 6-A
07/23/19
36 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michael Jones <docmcjones@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 11:36 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Forth Street Corner Conservancy
Yes I support Forth Street Corner Conservancy
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6-A
07/23/19
37 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Linda Morris <metatrope@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 3:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Preserve Ocean Park
In 1967, (for $80 per month), I lived at 2514 4th in the "asymmetrical courtyard". This charming little 1-bedroom cottage
with fireplace and built-ins from the period, was the perfect size for one person. It had MANY original doors and windows,
a vintage, claw-foot bathtub, no shower, street parking, and one small closet. The mini-stove at that time had to be lighted
with a match. If you stood on tip-toe, you could see a sliver of ocean between the buildings from the back porch, It was
much like the bungalows that characters lived in, in the film "Swing Shift". Today it appears to remain much the same. I
hope it can be preserved for the enjoyment of future tenants.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
38 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Natasha Jivani <natasha.jivani@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 3:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Voicing Support for a New Historic District in Ocean Park!
Hi There ‐ it is so important that the council votes in favor of establishing this new historic district. Santa Monica is
changing rapidly ‐ some ways for the better, and some ways for the worst, but retaining our community character and
history is vital to staying relevant decades from now. We need to make sure that the city has character and is not
overrun by big box stores, boxy homes and apartment buildings, and maintains a sense of community. Expanding and
protecting historic districts is vital!
Thank you,
Natasha
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Santa Monica Conservancy <info@smconservancy.org>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Advocacy Alert: Support a New Historic District in Ocean Park!
To: <natasha.jivani@gmail.com>
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Support a New Historic District in Ocean Park!
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
At the top of the incline where Fourth Street meets Ocean Park
Boulevard is a collection of 14 intact historic residential buildings which
convey what the neighborhood looked like in the early 20th century
when they were built.
The Santa Monica Conservancy nominated these homes to become
the Fourth Street Corner District. All the homes showcase historic
Item 6-A
07/23/19
39 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
2
architectural styles that are highly intact and uninterrupted with more
modern structures, thereby making a cohesive historic district. Although
smaller than the nearby Third Street Historic District, it’s larger and
contains more historic homes than the recently designated 11th Street
Historic District.
Inexplicably, the Landmarks Commission failed to support the
application in a 3-3 tie vote. The Conservancy has filed an appeal and
hopes to persuade City Council that this historic section of old Ocean
Park deserves to be protected and preserved.
We need your help! The Conservancy’s appeal will be heard at the Council Meeting
on July 23. Help us show Council members that neighbors and Santa Monica residents
support the creation of the Fourth Street Corner Historic District. Write a message to
City Council at councilmtgitems@smgov.net and copy us at
district@smconservancy.org by July 23. Or click the button below to
vote yes by emailing us.
YES, I support the Fourth St. Corner Historic District!
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Contributors to Fourth Street Corner District.
Background About the District
What unites these different examples of early residential architecture is
their history– they were built following the western extension of Ocean
Park Boulevard from Fourth Street to the beach in 1917. Before then, OP
Boulevard ended at Fourth. After, with a major thoroughfare from the
beach to Los Angeles, residential development followed. All but two of
the residences in the district were built between 1917 and 1925. The
group includes an unusual asymmetrical courtyard and all retain a high
level of original design. In fact, 100 % are contributors to the district.
The Conservancy became very concerned after learning that tenants in many of the
structures had received Ellis Act eviction notices– indicating that these buildings were
at risk of possible demolition or adverse alterations. Without historic district status,
we could lose an important part of our history– and a unique corner of Ocean Park.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
40 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
3
Preservation Advocacy Fund
Strengthen our defenses against those who want to demolish our historic
places and reverse landmark designations. Donate today and make an
impact. We need your support now more than ever! Learn more about
the Preservation Advocacy Fund.
Give Today
About the Conservancy
Founded in 2002, the Santa Monica Conservancy is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to promoting understanding of the cultural,
social, economic and environmental benefits of preserving the historic
resources of Santa Monica's unique urban landscape. For information
on programs, membership and the Conservancy's Preservation
Resource Center, see www.smconservancy.org.
Santa Monica Conservancy
rsvp@smconservancy.org I www.smconservancy.org
STAY CONNECTED!
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InFacebook
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InIn stagram
Santa Monica Conservancy | 2520 2nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Unsubscribe natasha.jivani@gmail.com
Update Profile | About Constant Contact
Sent by info@smconservancy.org in collaboration with
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
41 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
4
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 6-A
07/23/19
42 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Penny Haberman <pennyh223@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 5:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FOURTH STREET CORNER HISTORIC DISTRICT
Dear Councilman
As a longtime member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, I support the nomination of the homes
at Ocean Park and 4th for the reason The Santa Monica Conservancy nominated them for
preservation: 'All the homes showcase historic architectural styles that are highly intact and
uninterrupted with more modern structures, thereby making a cohesive historic
district. Although smaller than the nearby Third Street Historic District, it’s larger and contains
more historic homes than the recently designated 11th Street Historic District.'
I hope the City Council reconsiders and that, in turn, the Landmarks Commission reconsiders.
Thank you,
Penny Haberman
Item 6-A
07/23/19
43 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Heather Brewer <heather@heatherbrewermft.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 5:27 PM
To:district@smconservancy.org; councilmtgitems
Subject:Fourth Street Corner Historic District
Hello there.
I wanted to write to voice my support for creating a Fourth Street Corner Historic District. As our city changes in ways
that are both inevitable and otherwise, I believe it becomes increasingly important to preserve our history. Architecture,
like any form of art, speaks in a way that almost nothing else can, getting at those ineffable bits that even our most
mindful efforts to document just can't. I do hope those on City Council who voted against this will reconsider, or at least
ensure that the purest values are behind their individual decisions.
Thank you all for the work you do for our lovely little city.
Warm regards,
Heather Brewer
90404
2665 30th Street Suite 217
Santa Monica, Ca 90405
(323) 319‐6118
www.heatherbrewermft.com
LMFT #100721
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) designated above. It may also constitute a doctor‐patient communication and may therefore be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, or use of the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at
323.319.6118, or by return e‐mail to heather@heatherbrewermft.com, and please destroy the original message and all
copies. Thank you.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
44 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Adriene Biondo <adrienebiondo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 5:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Historic Fourth Street Corner District, Old Ocean Park, Santa Monica
Dear Councilmembers,
With its great beaches, business districts, vintage neon signs and historic buildings, the City of
Santa Monica has long been a tourist paradise and a wonderful place to live.
But Santa Monica is fast losing its charm to demolitions; the most recent of which is the
mosaic mural, art and architecture of the Millard Sheets-designed former Home Savings and
Loan Building at 2600 Wilshire Bl. This is a heavy loss of a beloved Santa Monica landmark
that was designed with a regional beach theme honoring Santa Monica.
Now it seems that residents in the neighborhood where Fourth St. meets Ocean Park Bl. are
receiving eviction notices. I have visited this area often; it is home to a cohesive collection of
fourteen intact historic homes which convey what the neighborhood looked like in the early
20th century when they were built.
This historic section of old Ocean Park deserves to be protected and preserved, and I
enthusiastically support the Santa Monica Conservancy's nomination of the Fourth Street
Corner District.
Sincerely,
Adriene Biondo
Chair Emeritus
Los Angeles Conservancy
Modern Committee
Item 6-A
07/23/19
45 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:valerie <rosev611@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Fourth Street Corner Historic District
Importance:High
We ask that you support the proposed Fourth Street Corner Historic District, to preserve a precious reminder of Santa
Monica’s earlier days and history. The city is rapidly changing and it would be a shame to lose one of the few remaining
cohesive remnants of its past. The charm and architectural variety of this area is worth saving for future generations.
In the rush to remake Santa Monica, this modest gesture will protect a glimpse of earlier days. Those who follow will
thank you!
Valerie Rose and Leonard Brownrigg
Item 6-A
07/23/19
46 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonathan Taub <jontaub@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:4th Street Historical District
Hello
I urge you to vote for the 4th Street historical district. The courtyard and bungalows are some of the few intact examples
of early 20th century architecture in the ocean park area and the fact that they are situated next to each other is a
unique opportunity. As a fourth street resident these buildings and the already historical designated properties on 4th
street are the only ones that stand out and represent the past. To preserve these landmarks would be a great asset to
Santa Monica. There are few reminders of the past in the area that is primarily cookie cutter apartment building and
condos. We need to keep this piece of history!
Sincerely,
Jonathan Taub
310‐592‐9132
Item 6-A
07/23/19
47 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin Venturelli <findrobinv@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; district@smconservancy.org
Subject:In support of the Fourth Street Corner District
I support the Fourth Street Corner District. All the homes showcase historic architectural
styles that are highly intact and uninterrupted with more modern structures, thereby making
it a cohesive historic district. Although smaller than the nearby Third Street Historic District, it’s
larger and contains more historic homes than the recently designated 11th Street Historic
District. Please support this necessary preservation of our past.
Thank you,
Robin Venturelli, Director
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1221 Ocean Avenue #702, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Ph: 310‐ 383-2323| E: rventurelli@luxurytravelmag.com.au
www.luxurytravelmag.com.au
https://bluehairedblonde.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The information contained in this message
may be confidential, legally privileged or commercially sensitive. If you are not the intended recipient you must not reproduce or distribute any part of the email or its
attachments, disclose its contents or attachments to any other party, or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender
immediately by return email or telephone and delete this message from your computer.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
48 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rowat, Amy C. <rowat@ucla.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 12:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:4th St Historic District
Dear Santa Monica Council members,
I am writing to support the creation of the Fourth Street Corner Historical District. This historic section of our beloved
Ocean Park neighborhood deserves to be protected and preserved. The unique character of Santa Monica is shaped by
historical buildings and homes such as these. It is critical that the City of Santa Monica establishes guidelines to protect
and preserve such structures. Demolition projects and modern‐cube home constructions are all too frequent these days
and contribute to the loss of the special character of our city.
Thank you in advance for your support of this application.
Best wishes,
Amy Rowat
643 Navy St
Item 6-A
07/23/19
49 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:suzanne Verge <vergesuzanne@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Please preserve 14 homes in Ocean Park
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please preserve the 14 intact homes in Ocean Park for future generations. I am a long
time resident (living in our family home of 60+ years) and can trace my family roots back
to Santa Monica Canyon. It is so important that we preserve our history.
We have lived in our family home since 1957 (my parents were the second owners) and so
much of Santa Monica’s beautiful past has been destroyed that we need to save these
homes so that Santa Monica's history is not lost forever. People can not comprehend
how people used to live until they see it. I was docent for 7 years at the Annenberg Beach
House where Marion Davies and William Randolph Hearst lived and people come from all
over to see history…not to read about it but to see it.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Verge
434 Euclid St.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
50 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:43 AM
To:City Council Distribution Group
Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin
Subject:FW: 2nd Request to Approve /Re: Request to Approve: 4th Street Historic District
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding the 4th Street Historic District Designation.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Arlene Hopkins [mailto:arlene.hopkins@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:49 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: 2nd Request to Approve /Re: Request to Approve: 4th Street Historic District
Good day Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
On July 23 I urge that you please approve the Historic District Designation for the 2500
Block of 4th Street.
As a resident -- I have lived in this neighborhood for 35 years, and this block is integral
to the culture and context of this community.
As an architect and planner -- I very well understand the various arguments pro and con
of the historic designation. Fundamentally, this is a highly subjective issue, so it would
be wise to "to do harm" and, if necessary to "ere," to minimally do so.
As a former SM Planning Commissioner and as a licensed real estate salesperson -- I
understand the economic pressures applied by our own SM Planning Dept, and even our
SM Economic Development staff -- all of which result in disruption to community,
"gentrification" and worse.
Please protect our neighborhood by approving the 4th Street Historic District on 23 July.
Yours sincerely,
Arlene Hopkins
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:17 PM Arlene Hopkins <arlene.hopkins@gmail.com> wrote:
Good day Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I write to express my support for the proposed 4th Street Historic District.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
51 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
2
I am a 3rd generation of the Santa Monica Bay area, and a 40 year resident of Santa
Monica. Further, as a founding member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, a local
history lover, an educator and an architect, I hold dear and very much value our
historic community buildings.
Our historic buildings maintain our local sense of community and historic continuity.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal for the 4th Street Historic District.
Yours truly,
Arlene Hopkins
Item 6-A
07/23/19
52 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 12:21 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: 7/23/19 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal re 4th Street Coerner Historic District -- SUPPORT
July 19, 2019
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 7/23/19 agenda item 6-A -- Appeal re "4th Street Corner Historic District"
The FOSP Board supports landmarking the 4th Street Corner Historic District and therefore supports
the appeal.
The proposed historic district includes 14 historic residential buildings which show us what the neighborhood
looked like in the early 20th century.
The Santa Monica Conservancy nominated these homes to become the Fourth Street Corner District. All the
homes showcase historic architectural styles that are not only intact, but are not interrupted with more modern
structures, thereby making a cohesive historic district.
Although smaller than the nearby Third Street Historic District, the proposed district is larger and has more
historic homes than the recently designated 11th Street Historic District.
The Landmarks Commission vote on the application ended in a 3-3 tie vote. The Santa Monica Conservancy
has therefore filed this appeal in hopes that the City Council will agree that this historic section of old Ocean
Park should be protected and preserved.
The FOSP Board supports this appeal.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
53 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:karin mahle <karinmahle@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 1:24 PM
To:district@smconservancy.org; councilmtgitems
Subject:Fourth Street St. Corner District
Dear Madam, dear Sir,
we have to make the Fourth Street Corner a Historic District. If it looks like a small area to you, it is a very special area for
many.
I first discovered it when I used to take 4th Street to Venice and all of a sudden got a great view of the ocean from the
4th street bridge. 30 years later, I see people take engagement photos there and tourist line up to do the same. The
view is like the famous "painted ladies" in Sant Francisco, just better.
If we can preserve most of the old architecture we have in Santa Monica, we will become an area that will support a lot
of residents with jobs in the tourist and entertainment business. We will keep the amount of residents at a level that is
sustainable and will not become another beach community with the typical Orange County look of overbuild, expensive
houses and apartments.
There is a special spirit in Santa Monica that is a little slower than the City around it. A more compassionate City
Government and a willingness to help people who can't help themselves. We would like to preserve it in the physical
world that gives that spirit a home.
The writer who listens to the harpist next door. The architect who helps his neighbor with her flower garden. An investor
can come in and destroy all these friendships that have become family to many and that can not be replaced.
Even if these buildings will be renovated to an inch of their lives, they will encourage other creative people to move in.
But please don't let them be replaced by apartment complexes like the one across the park down the street.
Making it a Historic District will preserve it as a home for people who don't want to live in a cookie cutter apartment
building. Even if the artists who have been told to leave will not be able to afford the rents that they will charge.
So many things are changing in our world. We need some things not to change.
To me, that includes the big trees in the park, the old building that give me a sense of place. They let me know I'm in
Santa Monica.
Karin Mahle
Item 6-A
07/23/19
54 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:SUZANNE SHELLABY <sshellaby@verizon.net>
Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 4:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Appeal 19ENT-0260 ... 2500 Block of 4th St.
> As a resident of the proposed district I strongly support the appeal
> and its statement of architectural and historical significance.
>
> The corner of 4th and Ocean Park is one of only three or so main intersections in Ocean Park.
>
> It is the only one of these on a hill, with the dramatic views a hill
> provides, and which include these iconic buildings.
>
> It is the only one of these intersections that still has a vintage structure (ca. 1909‐1923) on each of its four corners.
>
> Side elevations (mostly partial) can be seen for all five parcels in the proposed district, from the parklet on the south
side of Ocean Park
> Blvd. west of 4th St., a unique and layered view of the district.
>
> All of the proposed structures on Ocean Park Blvd. can be seen from the entrance to the 3rd Street Historic District and
vice‐versa, an important visual link between these two districts.
>
>
Suzanne Shellaby
Item 6-A
07/23/19
55 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bea Nemlaha <tobea@nottobe.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 4:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Steve Mizokami
Subject:Designate 4th Street Corner District
Honorable Council Members,
I was one of many tenants and homeowners who successfully persuaded our City Council to designate the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District in 1990 as Santa Monica’s first Historic District. Our Ocean Park
neighborhood qualified for District status because it had (and still has) 87% of its original intact homes and
apartments representing common architectural styles dating from 1875 through 1935.
But we also believed our neighborhood had more to offer than a cohesive collection of significant buildings. The
Council agreed. Our neighborhood represented, and still reminds us, of an earlier time in Santa Monica’s Ocean
Park history. More than a Landmark or other single architectural gem, a District can do that and transport us
through time. Therein lies its value.
And therein lies the value of the proposed 4th Street Corner Historic District. The Council should grant it District
status and cement more of Ocean Park’s history in the public’s mind.
Respectfully, Bea Nemlaha, resident, Third Street Neighborhood Historic District
Item 6-A
07/23/19
56 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lorraine Sanchez <ms.lorraine.sanchez@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 6:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:4th St Corner Historic District Appeal on 7/23 Council mtg
I support the creation of the Fourth Street Corner Historic District and am asking that you vote to support this
creation,too.
It is an important part of our history and for residents and visitors alike a breath of fresh air in the unrelenting massive
development
our city is undergoing.
Lorraine Sanchez
1947 C 19th St
Santa Monica,90404
Item 6-A
07/23/19
57 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, July 22, 2019 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer
Subject:July 23rd Item 6. A (Appeal 19ENT-0260 proposed Historic District on 4th Street)
To All,
As a longtime resident of Santa Monica, I urge you to protect and preserve some of our history.
Please grant landmark designation status, as recommend by the Santa Monica Conservancy, to the "Fourth Street
Corner Historic District”.
I wholeheartedly support the creation of the Fourth Street Corner Historic District.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident of NOMA
Item 6-A
07/23/19
58 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
HISTORIC DISTRICT CRITERIA
NATIONAL REGISTER/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES
DISTRICT
A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.
CONCENTRATION, LINKAGE & CONTINUITY OF FEATURES
A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed
of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its
resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an
arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.
SIGNIFICANCE
A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for
historical, architectural, archeological, engineering or cultural values.
SMMC 9.56.100 LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION CRITERIA
B. For purposes of this Chapter, a geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically
related properties maybe designated a Historic District if the City Council finds that such area
meets one of the following criteria:
1. Any of the criteria identified in 9.56.100A (1) through (6)
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 feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
59 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Sherrill Kushner
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:09 am
I support the creation of the 4th St. Corner Historic District.
Sherrill Kushner
From: Meryl Senatt
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:10 am
Subject: Historical district
Yes, I support the Ocean Park/ 4th Street houses for landmark status.
Meryl Senatt
From: Paul P. Soucek
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:14 am
Subject: Establishing The Fourth St. Corner Historic District
Regarded Santa Monica City Council:
As a history fanatic, I strongly urge you to consider the Landmarks Commission's tie
vote on the establishment of The Fourth St. Corner Historic District to be a fluke.
An important part of our history is in jeopardy, and I beseech the Council to use
common sense in this matter.
Kind regards,
Paul P. Soucek
From: susan Loughmiller
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:24 am
Subject: I favor the new historic district!
From: LORAINE STERN
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:31 am
Subject: 4th street
I support landmarking the homes on 4th and Ocean Park
From: kate runyan
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>; councilmmtgitems
<councilmmtgitems@smgov.net>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:35 am
Subject: 4th Street Corner Historic District
It’s vital that this historic district is preserved, and that the SM City Council designates it
as a historic district.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
60 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Charlotte Jepson
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:38 am
Subject: Fourth Corner Historic District
I vote YES for creating this area a historic district. I love these original buildings.
Charlotte Jepson
From: Steve Carroll
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 10:57 am
Subject: I support the proposed 4th street historic district
From: Bruria Finkel
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 11:08 am
Subject: Yes
I support the conservancy on this issue of the 4th street slope
We must hold on to our history and stop developers from telling us what to do
Bruria Finkel
From: Jill Orcutt
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 11:14 am
Subject: Support of 4th St. Historic District
Yes I support 4th St Historic District
Sincerely,
Jill B. Orcutt
From: Lesley Holden
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 11:19 am
Subject: Support!-
I support this bill
Lesley Holden
From: Michael Jones
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 11:37 am
Subject: Forth Street Corner Conservancy
Yes I support Forth Street Corner Conservancy
From: Gavin Scott
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 11:53 am
Subject: Yes, we support the 4th Street Historic District
Yes, we support the 4th Street Historic District
Gavin & Nicola Scott
Item 6-A
07/23/19
61 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Alison Armstrong
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:08 pm
Subject: YES - I support the 4th St Corner District
Hi
I don’t know how to officially vote YES for the district, but I’m all for it.
Hope you guys get the support you need to make it happen.
And thanks for all the hard work!
~ Alison
From: Diane Miller
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:08 pm
Subject: Yes vote on the district..
From: Kathy solomon
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:18 pm
Subject: Support
I support 4th street being saved as historical district
Kathy solomon
From: Kay Ward
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:22 pm
Subject: Yes, I support creating an historic Ocean Park District
Kay Ward
From: Katherine McNamara
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:26 pm
Subject: Yes on the Ocean Park historic district!
Hi SM Conservancy, thank you for your efforts to preserve the historic legacy of our
city! I hate what these developers are doing to Santa Monica. We support the Ocean
Park historic district!
Regards,
Katy McNamara
Sunset Park resident
From: Sylvia Rose
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 12:53 pm
Subject: support for new district
Please count me and my husband Herb as supporters of the proposed new
historic district!
Sylvia Rose
Item 6-A
07/23/19
62 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Spielmann, Edda
To: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 1:46 pm
Subject: The corner of Fourth Street
I support the application for the corner of Fourth Street—it’d preserve an important part
of Ocean Park history.
Edda Spielmann
From: Diane Citron
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 1:50 pm
Subject: support for 4th street district
I agree to establish the 4th street district
Diane Citron
----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Plevin
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 2:01 pm
Yes, I support the Forth Street Corner District.
From: Jane Guthrie
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 2:24 pm
Subject: Yes
I support the Fourth Street Corner Historic District.
From: Chris Van Hook
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 2:44 pm
Subject: 4th Street Corner Historic District
I totally support the 4th Street Corner. Santa Monica as it once was is disappearing! I
lived near there for 10 years and relished the old buildings and history every day. It is
slipping away, please save this history!! Chris Van Hook
From: Gutierrez, Gabriel
To: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 2:51 pm
Subject: YES, I support the Fourth St. Corner Historic District!
YES, I support the Fourth St. Corner Historic District!
From: Susan Mason
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 3:07 pm
Subject: Support 4th Street historic district
Yes.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
63 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Natasha Jivani
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>; district
<district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 4:04 pm
Subject: Voicing Support for a New Historic District in Ocean Park!
Hi There - it is so important that the council votes in favor of establishing this new
historic district. Santa Monica is changing rapidly - some ways for the better, and some
ways for the worst, but retaining our community character and history is vital to staying
relevant decades from now. We need to make sure that the city has character and is not
overrun by big box stores, boxy homes and apartment buildings, and maintains a sense
of community. Expanding and protecting historic districts is vital!
Thank you,
Natasha
From: Clare Driscoll
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 4:21 pm
Subject: Yes, I support the 4th st historic district
From: Heather Staves
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 4:32 pm
Subject: 4th Street corner historic district
I support the 4th Street corner historic district
From: Ron Goldman
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 4:36 pm
Subject: RE: Advocacy Alert: Support a New Historic District in Ocean Park!
YES, I support the Fourth St. Corner Historic District!
From: mary young
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 4:55 pm
Subject: Yes...I support the 4th street historic district
I reside in the Ocean Park area and very much support preserving all we can in this
area. Thanks.
From: Veronica Tucker
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 5:00 pm
Subject: I Support the 4th St. Corner District
Item 6-A
07/23/19
64 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Adriene Biondo
To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 5:35 pm
Subject: Historic Fourth Street Corner District, Old Ocean Park, Santa Monica
Dear Councilmembers,
With its great beaches, business districts, vintage neon signs and historic buildings, the
City of Santa Monica has long been a tourist paradise and a wonderful place to live.
But Santa Monica is fast losing its charm to demolitions; the most recent of which is the
mosaic mural, art and architecture of the Millard Sheets-designed former Home Savings
and Loan Building at 2600 Wilshire Bl. This is a heavy loss of a beloved Santa Monica
landmark that was designed with a regional beach theme honoring Santa Monica.
Now it seems that residents in the neighborhood where Fourth St. meets Ocean Park
Bl. are receiving eviction notices. I have visited this area often; it is home to a cohesive
collection of fourteen intact historic homes which convey what the neighborhood looked
like in the early 20th century when they were built.
This historic section of old Ocean Park deserves to be protected and preserved, and I
enthusiastically support the Santa Monica Conservancy's nomination of the Fourth
Street Corner District.
Sincerely,
Adriene Biondo
Chair Emeritus
Los Angeles Conservancy
Modern Committee
From: Heather Brewer
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 5:44 pm
Subject: Fourth Street Corner Historic District
Hello there.
I wanted to write to voice my support for creating a Fourth Street Corner Historic
District. As our city changes in ways that are both inevitable and otherwise, I believe it
becomes increasingly important to preserve our history. Architecture, like any form of
art, speaks in a way that almost nothing else can, getting at those ineffable bits that
even our most mindful efforts to document just can't. I do hope those on City Council
who voted against this will reconsider, or at least ensure that the purest values are
behind their individual decisions.
Thank you all for the work you do for our lovely little city.
Warm regards,
Heather Brewer
90404
From: Sonya Jones
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 5:44 pm
Subject: i support the fourth street historic district!
Sonya Sones
Item 6-A
07/23/19
65 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Sherry Hoffman
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 5:57 pm
Subject: Fourth Street Corner Historic District
As a resident/neighbor and business owner in Ocean Park, I support the creation of the
Fourth Street Corner Historic District.
Sherry Hoffman
From: Karen Croner
To: "district@smconservancy.org" <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019, 10:05:49 AM PDT
Oh my gosh, how can the planning committee not vote for this?
How can I help besides writing and going to the CC meeting?
Which developer has their eye on this area???
Best,
Karen Croner
From: Lorraine Sanchez
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 6:04 pm
Subject: 4th street district
I strongly support the creation of a 4th street historic district! At the rate we are going
with increased development at increased heights
Santa Monica will become an extension of West Los Angeles perhaps still minis the bill
boards. You can always use the rational that
this will contribute to our attraction to tourists! It is definitely a lovely walk.
Lorraine Sanchez
From: Catherine Noble
To: district <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 7:58 pm
Subject: 4th Street Historic district
Yes! I love these buildings. Of course I want people to be safe so I’m under the
assumption that terrifying to earthquake standard etc will not be prevented. But
otherwise please save them!
Thank you,
Catherine
From: Harris Shepard
To: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 8:02 pm
Subject: I vote yes! Thank you
Item 6-A
07/23/19
66 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Ethan Goldstine
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:42 PM
Subject: I Vote Yes
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
I vote yes.
Ethan Goldstine
90402
From: Miriam Faugno
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:30 PM
Subject: Please support the 4th St Corner District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
The Santa Monica Conservancy nominated these homes to become the Fourth Street
Corner District. All the homes showcase historic architectural styles that are highly
intact and uninterrupted with more modern structures, thereby making a cohesive
historic district. Although smaller than the nearby Third Street Historic District, it’s larger
and contains more historic homes than the recently designated 11th Street Historic
District.
Thank you,
Miriam Faugno
Vice-Chair of the A-M
Group of the Sierra Club
From: Valerie Rose and Leonard Brownrigg
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:23 AM
Subject: Fourth Street Corner Historic District
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: <district@smconservancy.org>
We ask that you support the proposed Fourth Street Corner Historic District, to preserve
a precious reminder of Santa Monica’s earlier days and history. The city is rapidly
changing and it would be a shame to lose one of the few remaining cohesive remnants
of its past. The charm and architectural variety of this area is worth saving for future
generations.
In the rush to remake Santa Monica, this modest gesture will protect a glimpse of earlier
days. Those who follow will thank you!
Valerie Rose and Leonard Brownrigg
From: LINDA AVALOS
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Yes
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Save 4th Street. (They should of stop with the metro ) save Santa Monica 4 st corner
Sent from my iPhone
Item 6-A
07/23/19
67 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Ena Dubnoff
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Fourth Street Corner Historic District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
YES! I wholeheartedly support the Fourth Street Corner Historic District. I hope you all
will too.
Thank you for your support.
Ena Dubnoff
Ena Dubnoff / Architects
From: Jonathan Taub
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:56 AM
Subject: 4th Street Historical District
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: <district@smconservancy.org>
Hello
I urge you to vote for the 4th Street historical district. The courtyard and bungalows are
some of the few intact examples of early 20th century architecture in the ocean park
area and the fact that they are situated next to each other is a unique opportunity. As a
fourth street resident these buildings and the already historical designated properties on
4th street are the only ones that stand out and represent the past. To preserve these
landmarks would be a great asset to Santa Monica. There are few reminders of the past
in the area that is primarily cookie cutter apartment building and condos. We need to
keep this piece of history!
Sincerely,
Jonathan Taub
From: Peter Mullins
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:09 PM
Subject: Fourth Street Corner Historic District.
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Peter Mullins
Real Estate Broker
From: Robin Venturelli
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:33 PM
Subject: In support of the Fourth Street Corner District
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>, <district@smconservancy.org>
I support the Fourth Street Corner District. All the homes showcase historic architectural
styles that are highly intact and uninterrupted with more modern structures, thereby
making it a cohesive historic district. Although smaller than the nearby Third Street
Historic District, it’s larger and contains more historic homes than the recently
designated 11th Street Historic District. Please support this necessary preservation of
our past.
Thank you,
Robin Venturelli, Director
Item 6-A
07/23/19
68 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Rowat, Amy C.
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:53 PM
Subject: 4th St Historic District
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Dear Santa Monica Council members,
I am writing to support the creation of the Fourth Street Corner Historical District. This
historic section of our beloved Ocean Park neighborhood deserves to be protected and
preserved. The unique character of Santa Monica is shaped by historical buildings and
homes such as these. It is critical that the City of Santa Monica establishes guidelines
to protect and preserve such structures. Demolition projects and modern-cube home
constructions are all too frequent these days and contribute to the loss of the special
character of our city.
Thank you in advance for your support of this application.
Best wishes,
Amy Rowat
From: suzanne Verge
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Please preserve 14 homes in Ocean Park
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: <district@smconservancy.org>
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please preserve the 14 intact homes in Ocean Park for future generations. I am a long
time resident (living in our family home of 60+ years) and can trace my family roots back
to Santa Monica Canyon. It is so important that we preserve our history.
We have lived in our family home since 1957 (my parents were the second owners) and
so much of Santa Monica’s beautiful past has been destroyed that we need to save
these homes so that Santa Monica's history is not lost forever. People cannot
comprehend how people used to live until they see it. I was docent for 7 years at
the Annenberg Beach House where Marion Davies and William Randolph Hearst lived
and people come from all over to see history…not to read about it but to see it.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Verg
Item 6-A
07/23/19
69 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Nicole Picard
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:14 AM
Subject: Support for the Historic Corner
To: district@smconservancy.org <district@smconservancy.org>
Hello!
My husband Patrick Murray and I, Nicole Picard who reside at 2500 4th Street Unit # 5
are notifying you of our support for the historic designation for the properties on 4th
Street south and east of us up to the Ocean Park bridge. Feel free to contact us for any
additional input.
Thank you!
Best,
Nicole & Patrick
From: Andrea Bellamy
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 3:02 PM
Subject: District 4
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
We can't afford to lose this important example of architecture in the district. These areas
are what make Santa Monica unique. Once they are gone, there is no going back. Let's
continue to celebrate and preserve these homes. Members of the Landmark
Commission may very well regret not taking action now to save these structures. Let's
do the right thing for all your efforts. Thank you, Andrea Bellamy
From: Helen Corrigan
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:10 PM
Subject: Support for 4th Street Historic District
To: <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Cc: <district@smconservancy.org>
Dear City Council,
Please vote to establish the 4th Street Historic District and help preserve the character
of a unique section of Santa Monica.
The properties earmarked for the district embody the enduringly eclectic nature of
Ocean Park and range from unique, Spanish-style homes to charmingly cottages and
residences to funky beach getaways. The dwellings remind us of simpler times and
previous generations of Santa Monicans who lived and worked, swam and surfed, and
raised their families here.
The residences are a quintessential part of our neighborhood, enhancing walks to the
beach and Main Street as well as commutes along 4th Street to and from Downtown. If
these residences are not preserved, it will be a sad day for the community--another
example in which Ocean Park becomes more soulless and less vibrant.
We understand that the pressures and incentives to demolish and redevelop these
parcels of land as multi-million dollar condos must be enormous. Already, one of the
properties earmarked as part of the historic district has been boarded up (2525 4th
Street) and an adjacent property (411 Ocean Park Boulevard) displays a notice of
upcoming demolition.
However, as longtime residents of Ocean Park, we urge you to resist these pressures
and vote with your hearts. Santa Monica will not continue to be attractive to new
residents and visitors if it loses its distinctive character.
Sincerely,
Fritz Hoffmann & Helen Corrigan
90405
Item 6-A
07/23/19
70 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: Marcia Capparela
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:33 AM
Subject: 4th St District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Capparelas both vote yes!
From: Anna Berzins Forkner
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:48 AM
Subject: Yes vote
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Hello,
My name is Anna Forkner, and I live at 2517 3rd street. My home was built in 1902, and
I have a deep appreciation for the old buildings that make up the fabric of our lovely
neighborhood.
My husband and I support the creation of a new 4th street historic district in Ocean
Park.
Best,
Anna
From: Susan Cope
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:53 PM
Subject: Fourth Street Corner District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
I heartily applaud the idea of a fourth street corner district. Santa Monica is fast on its
way to anonymous, depressing overdevelopment. We need a few outposts of
architectural history and sanity.
As a former resident of the Third St Historic District, I attest to the pleasure and
aesthetic joy of living our history.
Susan Cope
From: Thomasine Rogas
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:43 PM
Subject: Ocean Park Historic District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Yes, I support the designation of the Fourth Street Corner District as an official Historic
District.
Thomasine Rogas
Item 6-A
07/23/19
71 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
From: karin mahle
Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM
Subject: Fourth Street St. Corner District
To: <district@smconservancy.org>, <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>
Dear Madam, dear Sir,
we have to make the Fourth Street Corner a Historic District. If it looks like a small area
to you, it is a very special area for many.
I first discovered it when I used to take 4th Street to Venice and all of a sudden got a
great view of the ocean from the 4th street bridge. 30 years later, I see people take
engagement photos there and tourist line up to do the same. The view is like the
famous "painted ladies" in Sant Francisco, just better.
If we can preserve most of the old architecture we have in Santa Monica, we will
become an area that will support a lot of residents with jobs in the tourist and
entertainment business. We will keep the amount of residents at a level that is
sustainable and will not become another beach community with the typical Orange
County look of overbuild, expensive houses and apartments.
There is a special spirit in Santa Monica that is a little slower than the City around it. A
more compassionate City Government and a willingness to help people who can't help
themselves. We would like to preserve it in the physical world that gives that spirit a
home.
The writer who listens to the harpist next door. The architect who helps his neighbor
with her flower garden. An investor can come in and destroy all these friendships that
have become family to many and that can not be replaced.
Even if these buildings will be renovated to an inch of their lives, they will encourage
other creative people to move in. But please don't let them be replaced by apartment
complexes like the one across the park down the street.
Making it a Historic District will preserve it as a home for people who don't want to live in
a cookie cutter apartment building. Even if the artists who have been told to leave will
not be able to afford the rents that they will charge.
So many things are changing in our world. We need some things not to change.
To me, that includes the big trees in the park, the old building that give me a sense of
place. They let me know I'm in Santa Monica.
Karin Mahle
From: Achee Stevenson
Date: Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:47 PM
Subject: I Vote Yes!
To: <district@smconservancy.org>
Achée Stevenson
Item 6-A
07/23/19
72 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
Mike Salazar
2504 3rd Street
Ocean Park (Santa Monica), CA 90405
July 22, 2018
RE: Item 6.A. (July 23, 2019). Support for Appeal and Designation of the 4th Street ‘Corner’ Historic District.
I am asking the City Council to grant the Appeal and support designation of the 4th Street ‘Corner” Historic District
as our next Historic District. This is a turning point for preservation, and time to take a stand for preservation.
Background: Without any reduction in significance, the 4th Street Corner Historic District was removed from the
2018 HRI Update. Nothing changed at this corner from 2010 till the 2 0 1 8 update (except for one parcel now
boarded up). This was one of 41 formerly-appropriate candidate districts eliminated from the 2018 update with little
to NO public scrutiny: that’s over 80% of the 2010 HRI’s 53 listed. And this disproportionately affects Ocean Park
where development patterns lent themselves to smaller groupings to start.
But the point of this correspondence is, besides an investigation into the 2018 HRI update process, that the 4th
Street Corner Historic District was eliminated, despite the findings of staff and consultants hired to review the
district Application that 13 of 14 structures retained significant levels of i m p o r t a n c e t o e a c h w a r r a n t p o s s i b l e
landmark or structure of merit status.
The point of the district is to recognize the highly significant ‘start’ to patterns of development in Ocean Park as a
neighborhood, beginning with a most significant westward expansion of Santa Monica into Ocean Park via the
roadway connection of 4th and Ocean Park Blvd. This intersection, contrary to some Landmarks Commissioner’s
misconceptions, was in fact the most important and unique spot that (excuse the pun) “turned the corner” for Ocean
Park to become a true Santa Monica neighborhood.
Pre-1917, Central Avenue (now known as Ocean Park Blvd.), started at Centinela Avenue at the outer edge of
what was to become Clover Field, and ran westward to the Ocean Park hilltop road, until it reached 4th Street.
There was no discernable way to get ‘down the hill’ to 3rd Street, Main St. and the beach – all Ocean Park hallmarks
- except on a rather narrow Hill Street or Strand a couple of blocks to the north.
Nowhere else can the true beginning of the greater Ocean Park neighborhood be so clearly defined as at 4th and
Ocean Park Blvd. The unique 1917 extension of what was then called Central Ave. westward to essentially open
Santa Monica to the beach marked the beginning of Ocean Park’s neighborhood housing patterns and Main
Street’s successes through the pre-WWII years.
The two corner mission style buildings stand as historic beacons, and the three bungalows stepping westward
exemplify the push of the neighborhood down the hill. Continued 20s and 30s structures stand together with the
post-1917 years to typifying early Ocean Park development patterns. That the structures may not stylistically match
each other is beside the point and shortsighted. They collectively say something important – uniquely because of
this corner – about early historic Ocean Park.
I ask that you each read the exhaustive research by the Santa Monica Conservancy – far more inclusive and
conclusive than the hired consultants report – that hopefully will lead you to see the importance of this most-
significant historic district.
Residents over and over again have made historic preservation a priority. As a city we cannot hold out for the staff
or consultant’s preference for the “perfect building” or the “pristine uniform district” that mostly does not exist in
Ocean Park. This potential district should have never been removed from our 2018 HRI “update.” I hope you will
see it worthy to get to the bottom of its removal, but first to support its formation.
But the decision before you on Tuesday is to see past this transgression. Our Ocean Park neighborhood exists
because of the beach and farms and boosterism and transportation feats and hard-working families and pioneers,
none of which looked alike. Yet if our early pioneers could stand together it would be a priceless opportunity to
capture. Let’s designate this unique collection a Historic District before it’s altered or lost.
Item 6-A
07/23/19
73 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Suntree <sfsuntree@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 22, 2019 9:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:district@smconservancy.org
Subject:Fourth Street Historic District
Dear Members of the City Council,
I urge you to approve the Fourth Street Historic District. This group honors a piece of Santa Monica’s community and
architectural history that is not protected and memorialized anywhere else in the city. Cohesive, specific, and intact,
these homes represent a phase of development that bridges the first decades of our community’s settlement with the
midcentury era. Unique features mark the evolution of the bungalows.
According to architectural review by the Santa Monica Conservancy, these homes include “a rare style in Santa Monica,
deriving from Mission Revival precedents. Usually called Mediterranean, they have stepped parapet roofs, terra cotta
tile on the roof and on shed roofs over openings, Craftsman‐style windows, and detailed window design, including
stained glass. This style evolved into Spanish Colonial Revival, a mature example of which is represented by the latest
house in the district, a 1936 triplex that is already designated as a Structure of Merit. The City’s Historic Resources
Inventory has listed all these buildings as landmark‐eligible.”
Arguments over semantics such the importance of the word “cluster” in place of the word “group” are, finally,
meaningless and distracting. And the fact that the street has undergone change during the century represented by this
group of bungalows is obviously to be expected. All streets change, but the Fourth Street changes have not altered the
cohesion and merit of this grouping.
The fact that the residents are being removed through the Ellis Act alerts us to the obvious prospect that these homes
will be demolished. We are at a critical juncture in our city’s history. The pressure of development moves like a
juggernaut through our neighborhoods bringing permanent losses of irreplaceable community assets. I urge you to
support the designation of this collection as a historic district.
Sincerely,
Susan Suntree
Item 6-A
07/23/19
74 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonathan Kaplan <vintagevenicetours@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fourth Street Corner District
Hello ‐
I am a resident of 2045 4th Street, which is several blocks from the proposed District, and I fully support its adoption.
The Ocean Park area of Santa Monica is home to some of the most intact historic streets in the city, and I am constantly
surprised at how little of it is protected, as are many of my neighbors and out‐of‐town visitors. Designating this tiny
portion of it is a much‐needed step in the right direction.
Thank you for your consideration.
‐ Jonathan Kaplan
Item 6-A
07/23/19
75 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:33 AM
To:City Council Distribution Group
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Landmarking structures hurts people with disabilities
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding landmarking of multifamily structures.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Matthew Stevens [mailto:mastevens0131@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 11:20 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Landmarking structures hurts people with disabilities
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
A point that is often overlooked when landmarking structures, and especially multifamily structures, is the
impact it has on people with disabilities. Several of the buildings that will be up for consideration this week are
not completely accessible to people with disabilities. By landmarking these structures, you are making it
exceedingly difficult for people with disabilities to ever live on these lots.
This is a concern that I rarely see discussed by members of Santa Monica government. What good is a
landmarked structure if more than 20% of our population has difficulty accessing it? Some structures can be
modified, but the modifications are typically band-aid type solutions that never provide the level of accessibility
that can be found in new construction.
How many of you have considered this for your vote tomorrow? How many of you know whether these
properties are accessible to someone with a walker, or in a wheelchair? How many of you noticed that not a
single sentence in the entire staff report discusses ADA compliance or the needs of people with disabilities?
Regards,
Matthew Stevens
Item 6-A
07/23/19
76 of 76 Item 6-A
07/23/19
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
4th Street Corner Historic District
2500 Block 4th Street -18ENT-0356
Appeal 19ENT-0260
July 23, 2019
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
City of Santa Monica Historic Preservation Program
(City Landmark, Structure of Merit, Historic District Designations)
§Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance (Adopted 1976)
Landmarks Commission:
-Protect the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, architectural history.
-Safeguard City’s historic, aesthetic, cultural heritage.
-Educate and Promote Historic Preservation.
§Historic Designations:
City Landmarks: 132 designated Landmarks
Structure of Merit: 13 designated residences
Historic Districts: 4 designated Historic Districts
-Third Street Neighborhood Historic District (1990)
-Bay Street Craftsman Cluster (2000)
-San Vicente Blvd Courtyard Apartments (2015)
-11th Street Bungalow Historic District (2019)
July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
§11/20/18: District Application Submitted
§01/17/19: Information/Community Meeting
§05/13/19: Landmarks Commission Meeting
§06/10/19: 2nd Landmarks Commission Mtg.
§07/08/19: Appeal Filed by SM Conservancy
§07/23/19: City Council Hearing (Appeal)
Timeline of Events
July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Potential 4th Street Corner Historic District
(2500 Block 4th Street –18ENT-0356)
1.2506-2516 4th Street
-2506 4th Street (Neoclassical)
-2508 4th Street (American Colonial Revival)
-2510 4th Street (American Colonial Revival)
-2512 4th Street (American Colonial Revival)
-2514 4th Street (Craftsman)
-2516 4th Street (Craftsman)
2. 2518 4th Street (Spanish Colonial Revival)
3. 2524 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
4.2525 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
5.2528 4th Street (Mediterranean Revival)
-317 Ocean Park Blvd (Craftsman)
-319 Ocean Park Blvd (Craftsman)
-321 Ocean Park Blvd (Craftsman)
*Listed on 2018 Updated HRI
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Proposed Historic District:
§5 Subject Properties: Contiguous Grouping
14 Buildings + 1 Accessory Structure
All 14 buildings would be considered
Contributors as intact + Conveying
Historic Significance from
Period of Significance (1904-1936)
§Districts: Majority of contributing properties
within a potential district + a District should
have sufficient historical integrity and
possess significance as a whole.
§Should be able to visually and physically
convey its sense of time, place, and
historical development from its period of
significance.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
Context of Proposed District
July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
2506 4th Street (Neoclassical)2508 4th Street (Amer.Colonial)2510 4th Street (Amer.Colonial)2512 4th Street (Amer.Colonial)
2514 4th Street (Craftsman)
2506-2516 4th Street
July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
2516 4th Street (Craftsman)
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
2518 4th Street (Spanish Colonial)2524 4th Street (Mediterranean)
2525 4th Street (Mediterranean)
2528 4th Street (Mediterranean)
317 Ocean Park (Craftsman)
July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
321 Ocean Park (Craftsman)
319 Ocean Park (Craftsman)
Rear Building (Spanish Colonial)
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Historic Context:
§1910 -1915: Early single-family residences
constructed during Craftsman Period
§1920s-1930s: Development of the Block
-1920s: Revival-style buildings
-1930s: Colonial, Spanish, Tudor revival
styles
§Subject Block: Substantial redevelopment
beginning in the 1950s and 1960s: 2-story
multi-unit apartments
§Late 1960s:Ocean Park Blvd Regrading,
4th Street Overpass, Widening of 4th Street
§Infill development creates small clusters of
modest residences throughout Ocean Park
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Appellant Statement:
§Appellant does not agree that the District is
insufficient in size to qualify as a Historic
District, and that District size is not a
requirement established in the Landmark
designation criteria.
§Appellant states a precedent for the
formation of small historic districts:
-Bay Street Craftsman Historic District (2000)
-11 th Street Bungalow Historic District (2019)
§Appellant states their reasons of why the
properties uniquely represent a specific
period in the development of the Ocean
Park neighborhood was not given sufficient
consideration.
§Appellant states the streetscape changes in
the 1960s had no impact on the cohesion of
the District as a whole.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Landmarks Commission Discussion:
Support of District:
§Sufficient concentration of properties that
represent the architectural styles during its
period of significance;
§Sufficient architectural integrity that
continues to convey the history of the area.
§Summary of Findings
Not in Support of District:
§Lack of cohesiveness and definable area,
does not consist of a sufficient
concentration of properties.
§Architectural styles do not appear unified
to rise to level of significance as a district.
§Based on Staff Recommended Findings
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Historic District Findings:
§Criterion 1: small grouping of residences as a whole does not appear to significantly convey
the architectural and historic development history of Ocean Park.
§Criterion 2 & 4: Architecturally, the subject buildings are typical examples of their
architectural styles and do not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable
to a study.
§Criterion 3: No evidence to indicate any former owners or occupants of the subject
properties were associated with any important historical events.
§Criterion 5: Research indicates that the properties are not associated with notable
builders/designers/architects
§Criterion 6: District not located within a unique location or share a singular physical
characteristic
§Criterion B(2): Does not appear as a definable area unified aesthetically through its
architectural style to contribute to each other cohesively as a district.
§Criterion B(3): Grouping of these residences as a whole does not appear to uniquely or
significantly convey the historic development pattern of the Ocean Park area that occurred
during the first quarter of the twentieth century.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
Council Focus:
Consider Appeal Statement,
Landmarks Commission Arguments
And
Staff ’s Recommendation that the
Proposed District Appears Ineligible
for Designation
CITY COUNCIL HEARING July 23, 2019
4th Street Historic District
18ENT-0356
CITY COUNCIL HEARING January 22, 2019
11 th Street Historic District
18ENT-0166
Historic District Designation Criteria
A geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties may be designated a
Historic District if the City Council finds that such area meets one of the following criteria pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code 9.56.100(B):
1.It exemplifies, sym bolizes, 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 i nterest or value.
3.It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national histor y.
4.It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method
of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example
of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
5.It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer
or architect.
6.It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
7.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.
8.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.
9.It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING January 22, 2019
11 th Street Historic District
18ENT-0166
§Criterion 1: compromised historical integrity of many of its resources, no geographically
definable area possessing a distinct concentration of bungalow properties.
§Criterion 2 & 4: Architecturally, the subject bungalows are typical examples of their
architectural styles and do not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable
to a study.
§Criterion 3: No evidence to indicate any former owners or occupants of the subject
properties were associated with any important historical events.
§Criterion 5: Research indicates that neither Waldo Cowan or Joseph Rowe were notable or
master builders in the City.
§Criterion 6: Properties within the study area va ry in building types, setbacks, scale and
massing forms, and levels of historical integrity (lack of cohesiveness and uniformity.
§Criterion B(2): Does not visually manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early
residential development patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the
first quarter of the twentieth century.
§Criterion B(3): Proposed District includes varied residential development pattern lacking
unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources.