Is it a master architect? It’s on our list, that type of thing. So that’s why we can do this streamline process is by having an objective criteria.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, thank you. So, Susan, back to you. Just for clarification on what we’re doing now regarding Mr. Coochie who came before us with 616 Alta who felt that he was in nowhere’s land, regarding his architect, master architect, can you enlighten us as to what we’re not doing right for him to have that experience?
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Well, I can tell you that Ryan and I were quite surprised to hear his testimony tonight because we met with him on Monday and we explained everything and he is somebody who wants to make an addition to the rear of his property. And we explained to him how he could renovate his kitchen and we never told him he couldn’t paint his house, nor did we ever tell him he couldn’t change anything at the front of his house. So obviously there’s something in the message that needs to be modified.
LILI BOSSE: Okay. Because separate from what we do going forward, as far as I’m concerned, the testimony that I heard today from him is not something that we should ever hear at all and I was concerned that we had a resident who was in escrow in a home and was having that experience and I didn’t understand if it was something that was regarding the proposed ordinance, the ordinance that we have now, which it didn’t seem like it would be. So you’ve clarified to me that it sounds like he misunderstood the message that you were trying to relay.
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: I can’t speak for Mr. Coochie but I know that I had a lengthy phone conversation. I know that Rena of our staff has had a lengthy conversation with and Ryan Rena and I met with him for probably 45 minutes on Monday. So I don’t know.
LILI BOSSE: So I would ask that maybe hopefully you can reach out to him tomorrow and just clarify that his concerns are unwarranted and let him know that he can do a lot of what he is asking. Wonderful. Thank you. So back to your questions. 10-3-322 Certificate of Ineligibility. [03:02:03]
I know we touched on that for a moment regarding the seven years, no initiating landmark designation proceeding for seven years. Would love to know why seven years, seven-year itch, what’s going on, why seven years?
CRAIG CORMAN: Seven years was simply a situation where we could conceive of a situation where somebody’s property moves in and they don’t know whether they want to tear it down or remodel it. So they want to live there for a while. And, and so the thought was you want to let them live there for a few years to see what the house is like and get used to it and then if they decide they want to change they might want to change the house. They have a couple of years to beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
39 make their plans. That’s how we came to the seven years. It was simply an ability to give people, assuming they have the all-clear sign up front then they want to have -- and should give them enough breathing room that they can decide what they want to do with the property.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, and within the seven years if they decide, they do want to have it landmarked or have or file –
CRAIG CORMAN: If they want to have a landmark --
LILI BOSSE: Or a buyer wants to, I mean I am just throwing it out there. I know this protest against it but I am giving the other side of it.
CRAIG CORMAN: No, it does not preclude anyone from coming forward with a voluntary application and looking for, for example, a development incentive or a Mills Act Incentive and, and going forward that way. No.
LILI BOSSE: Okay. 10-3-3228 waiver of in lieu fees, may allow owner of designated historic property to purchase in lieu parking to serve a site area in excess of 16,000 square feet.
NOAH FURIE: Okay. So I asked for this maybe a year ago, maybe two years ago and our commission supported that. This has been in our code for many, many years. And really, all we did was brought the code up-to-date to include the fact that we have a local program and really all we did was added local designation because before it just had National register.
LILI BOSSE: And the 16,000 square feet.
NOAH FURIE: That was existing code. It’s been in the code 15-20 years, made no substantive changes other than making local designations eligible.
LILI BOSSE: Great. Okay, 10-3-3251, Historic Incentive Permit. I received a call from Frieda Berlin and clearly we’ve had residents speak to us regarding height in Trousdale. Can you address that?
NOAH FURIE: You want to start?
CRAIG CORMAN: You go, you ahead.
NOAH FURIE: Okay. So this is the provision that the City Council passed three months ago on properties that were already designated. It requires the Planning Commission to make findings, pretty normal findings and one of the findings that there isn’t a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties, which would include view.
[03:05:00]
If you want to tighten up the criteria on there --
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
40 [OVERLAY]
NOAH FURIE: I would ask the planning commission to make it crystal clear dealing with the issue that was brought up.
LILI BOSSE: Yeah, I would suggest that we -- we have heard loud and clear from the Trousdale residents that height is an issue and separate from that, we know that height would be an issue in Trousdale. So I would suggest that you put that in your language.
CRAIG CORMAN: Actually we can’t do that. I mean, because we actually had a brief conversation with the city attorney earlier in exchange of emails. The revisions before you tonight only deal with expanding the existing program to cover additional properties. That is as Commissioner Furie just said, the existing program, which was passed only applies to actual landmarks, landmarks that have been designated where at the time we did that we knew that eventually, we would want to expand the program to cover properties that the owners were interested in landmarking if they could get the development incentive. But we couldn’t do it the time because the procedures were influx, so you didn’t know exactly how you would draft the language to kick that in. Once we got the procedure down in the new revisions, we are able to then go back and add that little paragraph in. But the actual criteria that’s used in those findings is not part of the package before the council tonight. So it’s not something that can be inserted tonight. What you can do is direct the Planning Commission tonight to -- if you ask the revisions to go back and revise the permit finding criteria.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, so my concern though with that having served on the Planning Commission with you and dealing with findings if we don’t call out specifically height in Trousdale and you have finding as being detriment, you know, and it is somewhat subjective, you could have, you know, the owners of the property that is asking for height and could say that their level pad is at a different height than their neighborhood and that there is no view issue or whatever. You can have neighbor and talk about divisiveness. You can then have neighbor upon neighbor one saying that there is no impact and another saying, look, we’ve had Trousdale with certain height limits ever since Trousdale was incorporated. So I’m concerned about just relying on findings regarding height for Trousdale and so let me just go to our attorney to see is there any way if this council felt strongly that they wanted to call out height as not being a allowed incentive for Trousdale for example. Would there be a way to craft them? MALE 1: Yes, you can. I think what Commissioner Corman was saying was because this matter was not actually before the planning commission.
LILI BOSSE: No, I understand that. I’m just going forward.
MALE 1: Yes, you can.
LILI BOSSE: I just want to make sure that we, yeah.
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
41 MALE 1: Yes, I don’t think that would be a problem to do that.
LILI BOSSE: And so --
MALE 2: Council member, Bosse, the idea of giving flexibility and your point is well-taken for Trousdale. There are some areas where you have some houses, some beautiful estates built in the 20s and 30s where the pitch of the roof is such that it might be over our current standards and where you want to do an addition that is differentiated but compatible so you may need that but I don’t think anyone was thinking additional height where it would be blocking views? MALE 3: Mr. [PH 03:08:45] Snell has prepared language for the ordinance that could be inserted that would address specifically eliminating a height for Trousdale.
LILI BOSSE: Okay.
NOAH FURIE: And what he had suggested to us earlier is that if the ordinance were passed and there’s been talk of a 120-day hold, during the 120-day period, the matter could come back before planning. We could evaluate it and then move that forward. So about time, the ordinance would take effect, there would be an absolute prohibition on height in Trousdale.
LILI BOSSE: Right. Can you speak to any of the incentives that are being proposed? CRAIG CORMAN: Well the incentive program is a broad-spectrum program. The whole idea was not to limit it and define incentives. So it’s, it’s open-ended. There are no incentives that are necessarily part of the program. The first example, of course, was the, the old Harry Cohn Estate over in Crescent, and you can probably speak more to that.
NOAH FURIE: Right. I know you couldn’t participate in that one. But the idea there was, we had a beautiful estate there in the old days, your chauffeur would be down in your motor court down at the bottom of the property. They wanted a garage with in the front setback. [03:10:00]
Because it was a landmark property, they asked for an incentive. They had to go through the Planning Commission.
LILI BOSSE: LA Conservancy, don’t leave. I have a question for you.
NOAH FURIE: And in that case it was an incentive to allow for a garage that was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards at the front of the property, but it could be many different things and I think --
LILI BOSSE: Are you considering providing a list of potential incentives for -- I mean, I’m trying to make it --
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
42 NOAH FURIE: You know, here’s the thing. We’ve found that the residents can be far more creative than than we can. And I think the idea to have a strong preservation program is to have meaningful incentives and to have an incentive or the ability for the Planning Commission to be able to look at something specific for a property other than height in Trousdale that deals with the need of that historic resource. So, the Planning Commission deliberately left it broad and as we go on, we’ll see the kinds of incentives that will be requested and then we’ll have a much better idea of what’s available and will be able to make that known to people as an inducement to start looking at landmark in their properties.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, question that was brought up this evening regarding the Scout House. This is for Susan first. The existing ordinance that we have in place, will the Scout House be able to benefit from the existing ordinance that we have in place? SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Yeah, potentially.
LILI BOSSE: Yes, potentially.
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Potentially. Okay.
LILI BOSSE: So, my next question and I don’t know who wants to answer this. The proposed ordinance would the Scout House be able to benefit from the proposed ordinance, because it was mentioned that it wouldn’t. So, I just wanted clarification.
NOAH FURIE: So, I believe that it would potentially fit into the iconic property provisions, which allow the city council to move forward with designation under the revised ordinance.
LILI BOSSE: Okay. Susan, I just want clarification since I think Mr. Ordesky came and suggested and I have heard that there was a concern that the proposed ordinance would not be able to help the Scout House, so, I just want a clarification regarding that answer.
MALE 1: Council Bosse, based on my understanding and now we’ll also look towards the planning folks to confirm that the current ordinance includes the architect of the two Scout House as master architect on the list. So, under current ordinance, they would be required to go through the 30-day notification period for both the Cultural Heritage Commission and the council to offer the opportunity to call it a. Now, if the modifications to the list and I’m assuming that’s the process that the commission, the Cultural Heritage Commission and staff will be undertaken between now and the effective date of the ordinance, which I believe is 120 days. If the list is modified, depending on that modification, it may or may not impact it. That’s my understanding, but I will.
LILI BOSSE: Okay. That’s not an answering my question.
CRAIG CORMAN: Just as far as a master structured list is concerned, if the architect was gauge like a first name, but I don’t think he’s going to be following off that list. I don’t know.
But I don’t doesn’t strike me as he be the guy following off that list. beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
43 NOAH FURIE: But the difference under the existing ordinance, in the new ordinance is if it was an involuntary designation and I haven’t had someone do the research to determine if it meets the exceptional criteria, but for now hypothetically, if it didn’t meet that the provision in the ordinance that would allow it is if you guys decided it was an iconic property, then it could be covered under it under that provision.
LILI BOSSE: Speaking to what Craig said. This particular architect is not going to be falling off the list of the new ordinance.
NOAH FURIE: Yes, that is correct. But just because he’s on the list doesn’t mean that the property qualifies under the exceptional work definition. [03:15:00]
LILI BOSSE: But the existing ordinance that we have in place, it would.
NOAH FURIE: If the architect would, the question would be, is this a notable work of a master architect and I couldn’t answer that right now, without having evidence to support it.
NANCY KRASNE: Lili, can I ask you a question?
LILI BOSSE: Of course.
NANCY KRASNE: Since we own the Scout House, I don’t know who owns it, but it’s by this master architect, but it’s somebody owns it. Susan Healy Keene owns it. By the way, congratulations on your purchase. Since we don’t own the property that it sits, on they could say to us, you can have it and designate it and just say just take it off the property. So, I would caution this council to be careful because we don’t own the property that the Scout House belongs.
NOAH FURIE: I was just we don’t talk about this because this could come before our group and your group and this is an agenda is denied.
LILI BOSSE: So, I just wanted clarification because certain comments were made by speakers today and I just wanted to clarify some of the comments that were said. So next question, is the change of the majority of the council of a vote. Now would require 4 to 1 as opposed to three votes, can you explain that change?
CRAIG CORMAN: There was two reasons for that. One, it clearly shows that involuntary designations is not favored by the City. The second reason and this is why in Chula Vista adopted a similar provision is that they felt that because there are still some subjectivity involved with designation of landmarks in voluntarily. It’s further insulates the city from possible appeal if there was a legal challenge the decision.
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
44 LILI BOSSE: Okay. I have a question for Mr. Adrian Scott Fine at the LA Conservancy. Thank you. Thank you for staying, I have a feeling some other of my colleagues, might have some questions. And thank you for all your help working with both commissions and working with our city. Thank you very much for your guidance.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Yeah, thank you.
LILI BOSSE: So, just a number of years ago. Our city went from an F to an A plus and we were all very proud and celebrated when we finally had this ordinance in place. Based on the proposed ordinance currently that we are talking about, what do you think our grade would then be from an A plus? And again, I know you haven’t necessarily look and I don’t know if you have or haven’t, but do you have any idea what our grade?
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: We started that process because in thinking through that, we want to understand it too, this is an unusual circumstance. When we did the preservation report card. We essentially looked at certain metrics in every community in terms of how we assess and gave a point spread for community that would then determine their grade average. And so, we have initially at that, in terms of if the ordinance as it is today is passed. What does that mean? I think the biggest issue that in terms of reduction in point spread is the loss of our ability to do single family residential historic districts.
LILI BOSSE: That was the whole conversation [INDISCERNIBLE 03:18:38].
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: That’s a big point system already in there. I think we had some question about essentially, you have the ability, but it’s a much more limited ability, especially from the culture heritage commissions standpoint in terms of processing involuntary, designations in the future that’s different. So, looking at that, I think, we haven’t assessed what it would be but we do know it will drop at least a grade maybe two grades in terms of where you are right now. And that’s not something we don’t take that -- we take that very seriously and that’s again why we’ve worked so hard to try to figure out, if there’s ways to tweak the current ordinance and fix it in certain areas and understand that we’re very rational people. We don’t get everything we want and we still believe there are some things especially around the certificate and ineligibility that need to be addressed. That will certainly help and feel give us more comfort level in terms of going forward.
LILI BOSSE: I think I certainly ask plenty of questions regarding the historic districts. What is your concern regarding the certificate of ineligibility? What were was the conservancies concerned?
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: It an unusual provision and we understand the idea to have greater predictability which is certainly a unique aspect that Beverly Hills wants to be able to do. I think the biggest concern is that it outlines a process but it doesn’t tie it to anything in terms of criteria. [03:20:00]
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
45 So, it gives Susan’s position which we have great confidence in Susan but in the future, whoever is in that position is making these very important decisions in terms of whether a property does or does not receive a certificate of ineligibility and there’s nothing in that language that says it’s tied to the landmark designation criteria or analysis from our qualified historic preservation consultant. That’s another parts of the ordinance, but it’s not specifically stated within the certificate of an eligibility process. And so, we’ve suggested multiple times if we inserted that into the process in the language as it is right now, we would fill greater comfort in terms of understanding how that process will play out in the future instead of it being left open or open subjects objectivity in terms of how they came or arrived at that particular decision.
LILI BOSSE: So, you don’t feel that there’s enough guidelines for the director to be able to make that assessment, is that what you’re saying?
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Well, the director may or may not have the qualifications first to do that. So, they may rely on another staff or consultant to be able to make that. But again, there’s nothing in the actual language under certificate of ineligibility that says what they base their decision on. So, I think if that was clear and in the language, we suggested at least like everywhere else, tie it to the designation criteria and perhaps a qualified historic preservation consultant, which is a definition that’s already in the ordinance. I think that would make it very clear in terms of how they arrived at that decision and if there’s an appeal, it’s much more clear in terms of that process.
LILI BOSSE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Stay close.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: I will.
LILI BOSSE: Craig, could you respond to that as to why we’re not doing that and can we do that and still have the 30 days and still --
CRAIG CORMAN: First of all, I think that the Conservancy has misread the provision. I just want to be as kind as possible. I mean, it’s just basically misread it. The determination and the certificate of ineligibility program is whether the property is eligible, but it’s an eligible property.
I don’t have the exact language in front of me, but that’s what it says. The definition of eligible property says whether there’s a sufficient [INDISCERNIBLE 03:22:18] determine whether all the applicable designation criteria can be met, right? So it doesn’t use the word designation criteria in the body of the paragraph in 3221, whatever it is, but because it uses a defined term eligible property, it does in fact, refer back to the designation criteria.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, so please.
NOAH FURIE: I think the only language that would be needed to be added to this section would be some language that the report or the information was collected by someone who is qualified to do it. I think Craig is right that it refers back to it in a different section but what Adrienne did mention it is silent on the qualifications of the party who is gathering the information and the reason at the time was because we had somebody on staff, Bill Crouch, who beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
46 met those qualifications based upon the Secretary of the Interior standards for professional disciplines. That’s what he’s talking about. So would be a very simple change just to add in that the party doing it must have those professional disciplines.
LILI BOSSE: Okay, so based on the concerns that you are hearing. You think, that that’s something that could be changed? I’m not saying --
CRAIG CORMAN: If the council would like to change it, it can be changed because all you’re doing is saying who working with the director needs to be involved. Doesn’t change the basic process, but I will say this much. I don’t know if you really need to do that only because the system was set up because of the objective criteria. You don’t need that qualification to determine whether the facts exist. Their objective facts. Are there sufficient publications? Is that on a master architect list? These are very easy facts determined. I don’t think you need special education, special training to them. We can have someone make those determinations, but I don’t know if it’s required given the task involved.
LILI BOSSE: So when we put this in place, we did have a Bill Crouch. Is it your opinion that -- do you feel that we need a staff member that has that type of expertise? NOAH FURIE: I don’t know that we necessarily need the person on staff. We need the ability which is the plan as I understand it to utilize someone with those skills to do this work anyway. [03:25:05]
LILI BOSSE: Okay. So from my perspective, I was the mayor at the time when we had this meeting and when you had come before us with a revised, ordnance. And at that time, I felt that We needed more work on it. And I appreciate that the LA Conservancy, planning commission, the cultural heritage commission, all the many residents that came to put the input to make what you have brought before us tonight. I do recognize how much hard work you have put forth to make this happen. Believe me, I know and I appreciate it and for my perspective, when this ordinance came to us years ago, the first ordinance. I think it was for me one of the proudest moments that I had as a city council member to finally have a historic preservation ordinance in Beverly Hills and to have a cultural heritage commission. So, from my perspective, I think we are a community that values our history and as was mentioned, last year, we spent a whole year honoring our 100th birthday of our city, and honoring, our past, our character of our city. The charm, what makes Beverly Hills unique and what we’re proud to call our home. I think a lot of what was said tonight was very, very important. For the last three years, every landmark property that came before us was a 50 vote. I don’t remember seeing a chamber that was packed with residents against anything. If anything, I think all of us felt very proud to landmark again and again, 29 is was mentioned today local landmarks. We had no involuntary landmark designations, and we also had no applications for historic districts. So, for my view, I recognize how much work has been put into this and I do think from my perspective what I was looking for when I asked that we go back and rework this. My number one priority was a process for people to know in the very easy way to comprehend to understand the process for a homeowner or a home buyer to know if their property is historic and for it to be an easy understandable steps. I beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
47 think that was my number one goal and I think when we had our staff report what was told to us was the reason why we’re even here discussing it was regarding the processing of the timelines and the 30-day hold and then in terms of the planning commission, it was to increase certainty the pros and cons of historic districts, tighten local landmarks and the original intent of the ordinance. So, from my perspective, do I think the current ordinance that we have, do I think it’s perfect? I don’t think it’s perfect. I think there are elements of it that didn’t provide for certainty and I think that’s why we all agreed that we -- I think all of us unanimously agree that we wanted to find a better way for people to understand and understand in a quick way as opposed to having them wait months and months and months. So that’s why I mentioned this one resident that came today, Mr. [PH 03:29:12] Gucci and as we understood that has actually nothing to do even with our ordinance. So, from my perspective, I recognize that you’ve done a lot of work, but there are elements of what’s being proposed that I’m not comfortable with. I think you’ve done some good changes in many ways, but I still am not convinced understanding why we’re eliminating the R-1 districts considering we haven’t ever had even one application for it. So I haven’t been convinced to understand and I still think that there’s some language changes that could be done. I think clearly as you’ve said.
[03:30:00]
I think there might be some misunderstanding, miscomprehension between what the intent is of this particular ordinance and using the LA Conservancy, and I think what is disturbing to me is, I’ve heard numerous people say today that they feel that, because the LA Conservancy isn’t -- there not residents of Beverly Hills. What does it matter? I don’t feel that way. I think it’s about conservation. It’s about historic preservation and I feel that Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, we are a team. We are community that is side-by-side and have pride of being side by side and I think whatever we can learn from each other is a plus. I believe that the LA Conservancy has only been helpful. I don’t believe that they’re pushing anything down our throats. I think they’ve been very respectful of our community. I only view this as knowledge. So from my perspective, what I would say is I think we are close. We are certainly closer than we were months ago when it came before us then. I think we are almost from my perspective, almost there. We’re just about at the finish line. I think they’re just a few issues that can be tweaked and then I think we would have a near to as best perfect one can have because I think we all have the same goal. I think everybody that spoke tonight loves our community loves and values, you know, I think the 29 local landmarks that we have designated, I think everybody has the pride of keeping our character and in our history, but I think there’s just a few little elements that I think we can work towards and get there. So from my perspective, I wouldn’t be able to support what we have before us tonight but I think that with a few more little tweaks, we could get there and thank you again, for all your hard work.
JOHN MIRISCH: Thank you. Council member Brian.
BRIAN: Okay. So, what is the cost incurred for the certificate of ineligibility? SUSAN HEALY KEENE: We have not established fees yet. And so, as part of this process in the 120 days, we would do a fee analysis and come back to you with proposed fees. I can tell you beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
48 what they are. What the current process is now and that’s $5,000. So, we would look to have something that would be less than that.
BRIAN: Okay, I would hope so. That’s a lot of money for some reasons.
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: It is a lot of money.
BRIAN: We are just trying to get a designation in the city and those delays are costly. Okay, thanks. That’s my questions.
[OVERLAY]
BRIAN: I’ll come back for that to answer your questions. [OVERLAY]
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay, thank you. Well, yeah, I would like to thank Lili for the wonderful question and Willie for his excellent questions. Craig, I have some questions of you and then probably Adrian as well. You mentioned that historical restrictions can cause a drop off of 15 percent in value. Where did you get that from?
CRAIG CORMAN: I got that from a couple of sources. One of which was the person who appraises conservation easements Mississippi Valley Conservancy. This is a while ago. I actually, I would like to have had his name tonight, but I couldn’t find my notes. But I can also tell you that -- I can tell you of, well, that’s basically it.
JOHN MIRISCH: Is it just restrictions in terms of historical districts or historical buildings, or is it any kind of restriction?
CRAIG CORMAN: No, it’s really any kind of restrictions. I mean, people are generally uncomfortable with buying properties that have developed and restrictions on them. In his experience that typical amount also apply the conservation easements in his practice.
JOHN MIRISCH: So for example, if you limited not being able to build more than one story, that would be a restriction?
CRAIG CORMAN: If you did it on an ad hoc basis with on one property, yes.
JOHN MIRISCH: Or, for example limited people’s abilities and their backyards to plant trees or whatever that would also be a restriction?
CRAIG CORMAN: Again, on an ad hoc basis. Keep in mind that when you talk about placing a development restriction, the historical preservation development restricted it’s an ad hoc basis.
So an individual property it’s not citywide. So, that property value drops. beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
49 JOHN MIRISCH: It is actually citywide for certain class of buildings.
CRAIG CORMAN: I’m talking about the historic designation. [03:35:00]
JOHN MIRISCH: Right. But for all buildings by a master that meet a certain criteria. [OVERLAY]
JOHN MIRISCH: So you mentioned Abiliene and that sort of thing, but what about Pasadena? Pasadena is sort of close to us. What have the impacts been on the property values there? CRAIG CORMAN: You heard some tonight say they had increased. I don’t know whether that increase is the result of the general market increases or not, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay. So you mentioned that buildings that were built was it pre-35? CRAIG CORMAN: Pre-1935.
JOHN MIRISCH: 35.
CRAIG CORMAN: Also, the 27.
JULIAN A. GOLD: Okay. Have issues with earthquakes. We’ve heard for example, from the schools that Hawthorne is unsafe and it should be torn down. Would that be something you would agree with? Because I know we don’t have the ability to historically landmark schools and that sort of thing, but that’s something that we’ve heard.
CRAIG CORMAN: Again, the schools are covered by the field act. I have a lot of familiarity with that and I don’t know to what extent that was revised over the years. My guess is based on the fact that every time we have a major earthquake, we learn additional things about how the earthquake effects buildings that a building today, built today would be more earthquakeresistant for a higher magnitude earthquake than what we have now. I think that’s common sense.
JOHN MIRISCH: Susan, does in LA currently have a program whether starting about earthquake retrofitting? And they’re actually mandating that for certain class of buildings.
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: I am not that familiar with LA’s program, but I believe you are correct.
JOHN MIRISCH: [PH 03:36:36] Pattie, do you know?
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
50 MALE 1: Yeah. I think they’re in the process of doing that inventory and then they will develop standard depending on that --
JOHN MIRISCH: So in theory, kind of, a separate issue but was addressed? That would be something we could also do here as well.
MALE 1: Yes, and I believe staff is going to do the inventory and the analysis and then we’ll bring back options and recommendations for the council to consider. [03:37:00]
JOHN MIRISCH: So, the Certificate of Ineligibility, thank you for the clarifications, I understand your perspective that what’s eligible is a list of criteria and someone is just making that findings or not. Is that something that can be called up by the council? So, in other words, if there is a certificate issued within 14, 30, how does it work? Within 14 days? SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Yes.
JOHN MIRISCH: A councilmember could call it up?
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Yes, any discretionary decision can be called up by councilmember.
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay. Is that by a 4:1 vote? Because that’s like an urgency ordinance of 4:1 vote?
SUSAN HEALY KEENE: No, that’s the separate section of the code.
JOHN MIRISCH: That’s just if it’s iconic or not. The determination of whether a building is -- in other words, so the Scout House might be a master architect, might not meet the criteria for exceptional, but Noah mentioned it could possibly qualify if it were “iconic”. Is that something -- what is the 4:1 vote required for?
RYAN GOHLICH: The 4:1 is for the involuntary designation.
JOHN MIRISCH: In that case, exactly. So any kind of whether it’s because of its iconic or whether it’s because it meets criteria, for any kind of involuntary designation? SUSAN HEALY KEENE: Well, it’s for designation.
RYAN GOHLICH: Right. And so the director’s determination, sorry, the Certificate of Ineligibility is just the first step in going through the landmark proceedings that the director’s decision to either issue that certificate or not.
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay, that’s the 3:2, but I understood. So what you’re saying is the final vote for any involuntary designation is always equivalent to an urgency ordinance 4:1? beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
51 RYAN GOHLICH: Yes.
JOHN MIRISCH: According to this? Okay. The street park named after them thing, so Noah, maybe since this was your thing. So basically, in that case, Frank Fenton is in but Ben Stansbury, Mendel Silberberg, Chuck Ehrenberg, Paul Schwab, Max Salter they’re out. That’s according to that.
MALE 1: Yeah.
CRAIG CORMAN: That would be correct if you don’t have any parks or streets name for [INDISCERNIBLE 03:39:19] assume they don’t.
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay, thank you. Clarifies that. Adrian, question for you. We’ve heard a little bit about property values in historic districts. I’m not really interested in Abilene, Texas and that sort of thing, but for communities that might be more comparable to Beverly Hills, do you have any anecdotal evidence or actual hard facts about potential property values? Because we actually have heard a lot from a lot of concerned residents, and in fact, a lot of the letters, the chain letter that we got talks about property values. What’s your experience? [03:40:00]
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: It’s often the number one issue that comes up when you’re talking about specially single family residential home.
JOHN MIRISCH: Right.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Historic districts is, “What’s the impact on property values?” I don’t have anything with me, but certainly and just so you know, my background before coming to the Conservancy was working at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. So, I have more of a national perspective before coming to the LA market. And there have been studies that, similar to Abilene and others, they’ve been done all over the country for many years now, and there’s been no study that’s shown or demonstrate that property values reduce once you become a local historic district. In most cases, they accelerate at a higher pace than similar non-designated neighborhoods nearby. And part of the reason for that is that you have, in this case, what we’ve been talking about, you have greater certainty because you know that the character of the neighborhood is going to be maintained and the reason that you may have bought a house in that neighborhood, that feeling and setting and the trees and the appropriateness of the architecture is going to be maintained and that’s part of the reason why those neighborhoods are in demand and have a higher value. And that’s the reason certainly in Los Angeles why we have a waiting list right now of over a dozen neighborhoods are trying to become historic preservation overlay zones specifically because they want that certainty and in part, they want greater property values.
JOHN MIRISCH: Or any of those residential zones?
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
52 ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: All those are residential zones. LA does their program. It’s primarily for residential zone example, they only have a few of those where it has some commercial mixed in so they’re right now 29 historic preservation overlay zones in the city.
JOHN MIRISCH: Thank you. I will make one small correction from what I’ve read in all of the boroughs of New York except for Manhattan. Actually, Manhattan, it did perhaps cause a decrease in property values, but that’s because of density. In Manhattan you can build -- if you’re limited to a few stories and could otherwise built hundreds of stories.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Right.
JOHN MIRISCH: I think that was the one in all the other boroughs? ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: And that’s a highly contested issue going on right in New York.
JOHN MIRISCH: Right.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: If I can just add one other thing because I just want to follow up on something Councilmember Bosse said.
JOHN MIRISCH: Sure.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: In terms of tweaks and language, and I think that’s how we look at this as well that there are ways to fix this, and one area that I don’t think we talked on, but I do want to at least bring it up while I have an opportunity here is under the exceptional work definition.
JOHN MIRISCH: Yeah.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: That’s where we’ve said it’s unusual and it’s certainly different than we’ve seen anywhere else in terms of a standard preservation practice. We understand, Beverly Hills can and might want to do something differently, but we do think it does set the bar really high and I think there are a couple ways that you could fix that.
JOHN MIRISCH: Okay. How will you fix that?
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: One is one is a reduction in the number of publications that would be required, right now it says two, sort of arbitrarily decided. We think if you reduced it to one, that would be an improvement in that.
JOHN MIRISCH: But is it possible that you have something in a publication that someone thought was brilliant or even two or three was a brilliant piece of architecture that’s actually quite pedestrian?
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
53 ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Absolutely. Or you could have a potentially significant property that for whatever reason didn’t get covered at all or get covered only once.
JOHN MIRISCH: The owner didn’t want it.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: Correct. And I think the other thing that is in there that I think it’s just really a bad word choice, it right now says acknowledged experts in terms of -- who decides what’s significant or not, and I think you could change it from person knowledgeable. So, I mean I think it’s things like that.
JOHN MIRISCH: Little tweaks.
ADRIAN SCOTT FINE: I think you can really improve this and these are some of the things that we’ve suggested that I think would help. Thank you.
JOHN MIRISCH: I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Those are my questions. Well.
LESTER FRIEDMAN: Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. Let me just start by thanking the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and the Conservancy for working together to bring things together. And as I think we said, I don’t remember by who, you don’t always get everything you want, I do think that these changes are and make for a more fair and balanced ordinance. I want to call out again Craig and Noah who worked tirelessly on this project. It’s like the dynamic duo, the Yin and Yang, who’s going to speak up here, but I do want to say that you guys have worked and done a great job and we’re both part of the original ordinance, it was actually written and passed. So you all know this as well as anyone and understand what was passed and why you’ve proposed these changes today, to basically create that a bit more of objectivity. Again, as I kind of read through it, while there’s some changes in the definition that are important, there’s no significant impact as I see, significant impact of voluntary landmarking of any of these potential homes in the city. [03:45:01]
I think that we continue to encourage landmarking by offering various types of incentives, including things like the Mills Act as an incentive with impacts to both the city and the school district, with the Mills Act, because there is loss of some property tax revenue to the general coffers of the city and to the school district, but we made a decision that that was a reasonable, balanced and fair thing to do to incentivize preservation and that doesn’t go away. So preservation while we heard tonight by some that preservation is going to disappear. It’s not going to exist. This ordinance eliminates preservation. I don’t think that that is factually based at all. I think that the proposed revisions as I mentioned, are in fact, balanced and fair and it creates a much more objective criteria for the staff, for the Cultural Heritage Commission and quite candidly for us who don’t get into the level of detail that you all get into when you go through a determination of whether a home or building is going to be designated or not. It eliminates much of the subjectivity, not all of it, but much of the subjectivity that exists in the current ordinance and really eliminates residents being pitted against each other. There’s no question that in terms beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
54 of historic districts, you’ll start pitting residents against each other. In fact, you’ve already seen it with just one home where residents have been pitted against each other. I think that that’s the type of thing that we do want to avoid and nobody wants to be put in that position. When you have more objective criteria, it helps alleviate that. One of the things that significant persons -- I’m not going to read it, but it’s relatively vague in terms of in the past whose activities, achievements, contributions are demonstrably important within the city, state, or nation directly associated with the property, must be associated with a person during the period that the person’s significant achievements and contributions occurred. Well, who defines what that period is in a life of somebody? I think it’s very hard to do that. I think that the new definition is much more objective and much clearer and I think that that’s why we want that objective criteria. And to that point, we heard, and again, this sort of the subjective definition, we heard that our grade is going to substantially fall in the Conservancy. That’s what we’ve been told and as I kind of look through this, I guess again that sort of a semantic subjective definition of what is significantly falling. I think that one has to make that determination as they kind of go through that. I’ll play with that in a second. Each city that has preservation has to work and make decisions that are in the best interest of their community because each one of them has to find their own balance that meets their community’s needs. As some examples, Culver City doesn’t have an active landmark designation. They have no Mills Act and they have no certified local government, and they haven’t been surveyed within the past five years and they have no active landmark designation at least annually. So when you look at that, even without those items, they still have a grade of an A-. When you look at places like Burbank, they have zero points for ability to designate. I’m sorry that’s not correct. Hand on a second. I want to get that factually correct. Owner consent not required for designation. So they lose points for that. Glendora, no owner consent for required designation. They get zero points there. Surveyed within the last five years, they have none and their grade is an A-. Burbank is an A. San Fernando; they have no Mills Act. They have no dedicated Preservation Commission. The owner consent, no points for owner consent requirement. So when you look at that and they get a B+ and I can go through this. When you actually come back though and look at Beverly Hills where we do have an A+ rating and this kind of goes to that subjectivity. Beverly Hills still with these new ordinance changes will still have the historic preservation. Correct me if I’m wrong, Susan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, and they still will have a dedicated historic Preservation Commission. That’s not going away. [03:50:01]
And there is still going to be dedicated preservation staff although Bill left, we’re going to replace that person. While we will not have the ability to designate a historic district in the R-1 areas, just the R-1 areas. The owner consent is not required for designation. That doesn’t change.
The bar may change, but that requirement is not there. Active landmark designation at least annually, we will still have that because we continue to landmark buildings. We have a survey of historic resources already, and we have one in process that would meet the past five-year criteria.
We have a Mills Act incentive. We have additional incentives and we’re not now certified local government according to the point system here and we would still have historic preservation element in plan. So when you actually take that and you add up that point score, we end up with a score, by my calculations, and this is pretty objective. Maybe there’s some subjectivity of 225 points and using the criteria of 225 points, that would actually give us an A- grade by the beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
55 Conservancy. Now, I didn’t make these numbers up, these were all taken off of the Conservancy’s website today that outlines what each city has and every city is a little bit different. So, in fact, I guess we are falling two grades, if you consider an A+ to an A to an Atwo grades, but it’s semantics because what we heard was significantly falling up two grades.
Most of us thinking A goes to a C or more. But again, subjective in the statement, in the terminology, I’m very objective in terms of what we’re doing and I give the Conservancy great credit for actually having an objective grading system that people can look at and make that determination. So, some people want preservation at all costs and I’ve great respect for them.
That’s a philosophy. And it may not be necessarily my philosophy or every home or preserving everything or bring in -- I love my first car. It was wonderful car. I wouldn’t want to drive it today, but it was a great car back in 1970s. And some people want preservation to prevent development and construction near them, we heard the little bit of that today. Some want preservation because they don’t like the design criteria that results in the building designs of new and remodeled homes. A fair argument, that’s why we have a DRC and maybe we need to change the DRC criteria. That’s what we want. Maybe we need to look at the R-1 bulk that you’re doing and maybe make some more changes if those are concerns, but we have ways to do that without forced designation. Some want no preservation at all. They want to do whatever they want because they want to do whatever they want. That’s a philosophy. I don’t think that that’s what this council or any members of the commission on either Planning, or Cultural Heritage would have supported or would support. But by the same token, the true measure of local control is giving the property owner a certain degree of independence over their property, over their home, over their lifestyle and over the value -- as Ken Goldman said earlier, over the -- for most of us is the largest single investment and value that we have and it take that away from us when we didn’t know when we bought a home that we were going to have that or not. It’s also not fair. So while there needs to be ability to involuntary landmark homes, there needs to be a very high bar when you do a taking of someone’s property, convey their rights and have some significant potential impact on their values and their assets. So I do believe the changes proposed by you all are good and fair. We have to make some of our decisions that are in fairness to the applicant’s and landowners, and some of the things that we’ve already heard today is, it can take six to nine months to get through a process here. That’s not really fair. People deserve to know one way or the other in a fairly timely manner what’s going to happen to them. Delaying this is really not fair and I think that you’ve tightened up the number of days by which people have to act and that’s the city’s obligation if we’re going to undertake this type of process to just get them the information that they need. There has to be a very high bar for taking one’s property rights and I think that you created the balance in here that still allows the city to have preservation, still incentivizes people to preserve their homes, but also still sets the bar high so it doesn’t invade people’s true rights where government isn’t coming in and telling them every aspect of their life of what they can and can’t do.
[03:55:14]
To the comment, I can’t comment about the Alta House, but I can comment that there was a person here tonight who I know who wanted to change his wood shake roof in his house. And when he came in to pull the permit to do the wood shake roof, he was informed that because that home maybe of historical significance that he actually couldn’t pull the permit to get a permit to beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
56 put his roof on. Because in theory, he may have to keep that wood shake roof. He may have to put a different type of roof on there that’s wood shake and that he was delayed from doing something that in his mind was one, important, and two, was a life safety factor for him and couldn’t get an answer without going through the historical process. While that may be fair if it’s a historical home, we can’t allow something like that to languish for 60, 90, 120, 180 days trying to get some resolution to a home when he’s just trying to change his roof. Who knows if it was leaking? I don’t know. Certainly we know wood shake isn’t safe because we made a huge push in the city to get rid of it. So, we have to have a timeline that’s fair to him to get some rapid resolution so he can do what he needs to do to just make his home safer and to make his home more livable. I think that that’s what this ordinance and changing the timelines does because it creates specific timelines by which the city has to act to meet the residence or business owner’s needs. So I commend you guys on doing this. I think it’s time to move forward on it. Is it perfect now? Probably not. Will it be perfect in two weeks or four weeks? Probably not. Will we need to tweak things in months or years? Probably. But we will do that when we need to. But I think that this is the right thing because it brings a bit more certainty while still providing preservation in the City of Beverly Hills. And compared to where we were five years ago where we had no Preservation Commission or program at all, we are still way, way ahead of where we are. So anyone who says we in the city are destroying preservation in the city, that’s just flatly wrong, and I think that what you guys have done makes perfect sense. I commend all of you, even those who may not agree with the changes. I commend all of you for the hard work you’ve done starting with Howard and Craig, Noah, Rebecca and not Rich, so thank you all very much.
JULIAN A. GOLD: Thank you. Vice mayor?
JOHN MIRISCH: Thank you so much. I agree that there are some fixes that needed to happen and kind of that’s how it started out with a lot of good intentions. Fixing the timelines, giving more certainty, avoiding the sorts of situations where people were left in limbo. We had a situation where it was a little bit weird that if it was an involuntary designation, there was a longer timeline then there was if it was voluntary and that didn’t make sense and we needed to fix it absolutely. I’m glad that some of those fixes have been made. We definitely need to give quicker answers and be able come to some sort of resolution more quickly. So I agree with what we’ve heard from some of the people including Dr. Brien that they’re good things in the current suggestion. While I certainly myself, don’t believe in preservation at all costs, I do love the Petersen Museum and The Concourse, but I also think that there are some things that have been discussed that can and should be tweaked and that’s one of the reasons we’re here. It’s not perfect now, it won’t be in two weeks but I believe if we can tweak it now, that’s part of our job is to help tweak it and make it even perhaps a little bit better. We heard, I think one very good suggestion from Councilmember Krasne. One thing I do want to address is that in a chain letter that we saw and a lot of the letters read by Dr. Brien had the exact same content, so that’s why I refer to it as a chain letter. People just copied and paste it. I do want to defend a little the Conservancy because the letter describes the Conservancy as “An outside lobbying group that has no real concern for our property rights or property values. I don’t really care what grade the Conservancy gives us and I don’t think you should either.” I appreciate the fact that Dr. Brien actually looked at the grades and suggested where we might be and that that does have value and I agree with that.
beverlyhills_7a988324-c1d8-4e04-b776-51d35db933d1_00;42;00-4;23;00 Latham & Watkins
April 26, 2022
Transcript by TransPerfect
57 [04:00:02]
Some of our kids may not really care what grades their teacher give them, but probably as parents we should. I think the Conservancy does a tremendous job. They do God’s work. They’re not just an outside lobbying group, there are many members of Beverly Hills and they stand for preservation. They’re the gold standard for preservation in our part of the world. So I think they deserve a lot of respect for everything they’re doing. They’re not a lobbying group like someone lobbying for big oil or for whatever to make money or for Wall Street or whatever. And they’re not a group motivated by anything other than something that has nothing to do with pure profits.
I think that’s something that deserves to be respected. We can disagree about what needs to be done or what the goals are, but minimizing the impact and importance of that is quite another thing. So I just wanted to make that clear. To an extent, I also agree with some of what has been said before. I think some of what we’ve seen is absolutely necessary. Some of it is a little bit a solution in search of a problem. Some of it is a little bit, as they say translated in Swedish, it’s painting the devil on the wall. I think we’ve had our ordinance for a few years and we really -- as it’s been pointed out, we haven’t seen a lot of conflict. I think that the Cultural Heritage Commission has done a very good job understanding that fine line. Maybe it isn’t such a fine line about what belongs on the list and what doesn’t and we heard from their web before that there was one case where there was a potential involuntary designation. I think the problem there was the timeline and the lack of certainty. But just from the looks of it, that may have very well been a property that very well may have been something that should have been designated voluntarily or not. So I just want to congratulate and thank the Cultural Heritage Commission. As I said, I think it has been working fairly well up to now.
[04:02:04]
EXHIBIT 4
ERLY
City Council Agenda Report
June 16, 2015
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachment
5 Public Comment Letters
LOS ANGELES
CONSERVANCY
May 28, 2015 523 West Sixth Street Swte 826
Las Angeles, CA 90014
Submitted electronically 213 623 2489 OFFICE 213 623 3909 FAX Beverly Hills Planning Commission lacenservancyorg
Attention: Reina Kapadia, MCP, Associate Planner
City ofBeverly HillsCommunity Development Department
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]: Proposed Revisions to Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Ms. Kapadia:
On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, I am writing to submit comments for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, where I understand the Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance will be discussed. Our comments address the most recent draft of the ordinance and concerns we have in terms of long-termimplications. Where possible, we suggest alternative language to be considered, previous provisions to be reinstated, and some amendments to be removed.Throughout this process we have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with the staff and members of the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council’s Liaison Committee and provide comments. As the draft ordinance continues to evolve, we remain concerned as we strongly believe certain provisions potentially limit preservation opportunities and, in some instances, do not adhere to standard preservation practices applied elsewhere, in both other communities and at the state and national levels. If the current draft ordinance is adopted, the Conservancy believes it will severely limit the ability of the city and its Cultural Heritage Commission from being able to fully designate and protect historically significant properties.
Throughout this long process the Conservancy has provided written and oral comments, most recently on May 4th and 12th We continue to highlight several sections of the proposed ordinance revisions and suggest recommendations for fl
modifying the language. Given the back and forth nature of ordinance revisions to date, we are focusing on the major rather than minor aspects at this time.10-3-3202: DEFINITIONS:
Exceptional Significance:
This definition is highly unusual and does not follow standard preservation practices elsewhere. We strongly believe it arbitrarily sets the bar too high and potentially limits otherwise significant and worthy properties from being considered for local landmark designation. We strongly suggest this provision be removed.
Person of Great Local Prominence:It’s unclear what the purpose is of this definition, as it was added recently. It is very specific and prescriptive in nature, and limits local significance only to individuals who have had either streets orparks named after them [See Criteria B.4]. We strongly suggest this provision be removed.
10.3.3207: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION:
Subsection B. Appointment and Qualifications:
We suggest you retain “shall” rather than change to “should,” as it has recently been amended. It is important to require and maintain a highly qualified makeup of commission members, with an interest, experience and knowledge to ensure a professional standard.Subsection C. Term:
The previous language outlines terms for commission members. It is unclear why this is proposed forremoval and we suggest this be reinstated. 10-3-3212: LANDMARK DESIGNATION CRITERIA:
To retain the integrity of the Historic Preservation ordinance’s landmark designation criteria, the Conservancy recommends against adopting the proposed language, as currently stated. The criteria are so restrictive that they may create the unintentional effect of preventing a California Register-eligible structure in the city from attaining local landmark status.Of greatest concern will be the large number of historically significant structures throughout the city that will be denied the protection afforded by landmark designation because they are unable to meet the highly specific and subjective designation criteria.
To ensure that local landmark designation criteria better align with state and national models, we recommend the following revisions for these particular criteria.
Fi1F1 F [0 flHiO
Wi iI
— inS tJsu *‘ mu bn iril I 1 Tfl’ ‘ii dl F I Sri i)J siu 1’ I ‘T ant I W Criteria B.:
We suggest the following modifications [in red and strikethrough] to address persons of great importancewho may have occupied but not owned a property, as this qualifier is immaterial to establishing significance associated with a specific event. further it should not limit events to those only at the national level.
“It is an exceptional work that was owncd and occupied by a person of great importance for a period of time, and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person or group’s endeavors or the broad patterns of history efat the city, state or national levels. For purposes of this paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;”
Criteria B. 4:
This new criteria references a newly added definition of “Person of Great Local Importance,” which weprovided comments on above [See Definition]. This is highly subjective and limits it to only individuals whereby a public street or park in the city were named after them. This is an unusual provision that appears to be intended to severely limit consideration of a property for landmark designation under localsignificance, and will apply only in extremely rare circumstances. As stated earlier, we recommendremoving this definition and provision under Landmark Designation Criteria.10-3-3213: HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION CRITERIA:Subsection C:
The historic district designation criteria have been changed to prohibit the designation of historic districts in an area of the city zoned for single-family development, including but not limited to those areas zoned R-r. The introduction of restrictive criteria such as these would essentially curtail most, if not all, potentialhistoric districts from being designated.In many communities, local historic districts are comprised primarily ofsingle-family residentialstructures. This is a fundamental element of most, if not all, preservation ordinances. The removal does not adhere to standard preservation practices and limits residents of the city from being offered this type of preservation planning tool. The Conservancy strongly recommends that it be reinstated.
While a local historic district in a single-family residential area may not be contemplated anytime in the near future, it is important to offer and enable its application should it be warranted in the future. The ordinance already sets high thresholds before a potential district might be considered and ultimatelyestablished.further, there are other models that could be applied in Beverly Hills to ensure there is substantial buy-inand support for a district. Other cities have criteria and a designation process that set rigorous protocols H’iflflM
FF1 flLfli iF
but yet do not discourage or outright forbid the formation of local historic districts in single-family residential areas. Glendale and Burbank are good examples. Both cities require a two-step process for the formation of local historic districts. District proponents distribute petitions through the neighborhood,with the first petition asking the City to conduct a historic resource survey requiring at least twenty-five percent property owner support, and the second petition asking the City to implement the historic districtrequiring at least fifty percent property owner support.Subsection E.
This criterion stipulates that all of the contributing properties predominantly embody the distinctive characteristics of a single architectural style, type, or period. It is common for designated historic districts to feature a variety of architectural styles, though they may relate to one another through the cohesive development pattern of the neighborhood and other shared physical characteristics including similar scale, massing, and setbacks. We suggest removing the word “single.” 10-3-3215: LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROCEEDINGS:
Many of the proposed changes to this section of the historic preservation ordinance set higher thresholds aimed at making historic resource designation more difficult to achieve. These changes would compromise the City’s ability to designate many architecturally and culturally significant structures.Subsection A.i:
When the application is by owners of contributing properties for designation of a historic district, it shallinclude a petition in support of the application signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of the property owners of legal lots within the proposed district, and shall also include a current list of names and legalmailing addresses of all property owners in the proposed district.
The Conservancy suggests that a demonstration of property owner support be part of the application review process and not tied to the application submission. Typically, a demonstration of property ownersupport for a proposed historic district is not required as part of the application process, but is insteadsubmitted during the approval process, which allows applicants time to build support through variousmethods of outreach while the application is being considered for its architectural and cultural merits.Subsection A.2.a:
This “eligibility requirement” limits the possible structures that can be initiated for landmark designation by the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council to those that appear in the Inventory, were designedby a person identified on the master architect list, or were owned or occupied by a person of either great importance or great local prominence.The Conservancy suggests that this language not be adopted, as it unnecessarily limits the actions of the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council in initiating a landmark nomination. Such initiations HN nonnrni flHO
typically take place when the City feels that a particularly significant property might be threatened, and its ability to protect its architectural or cultural heritage should not be limited in this way.
Subsection B:
We suggest reinstating the following statement as it establishes a standard of excellence and scope that is appropriate to ensure a professional Historic Assessment Report, including the following:
“This historic assessment report shall be comprehensive in nature, and shall include not only the requisite findings but also all known facts and circumstances that either support or possiblyrefute those findings.” Subsection G:
This subsection requires the vote of four members of the City Council, rather than a simple majority (three), for the approval of landmark designations or historic districts for which there is owner opposition, though in cases when only three Councilmembers are able to vote because of a conflict of interest, three votes are sufficient.
The Conservancy recommends that a simple majority be the requirement for the City Council to vote on landmark and historic district designations. Selling the threshold at four votes is unnecessarily high and will undoubtedly have the effect of limiting the number of successful designations. 10-3-3220: CERTIFICATE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP:Subsection A has been amended to remove “a qualified historic preservation” condition from the list of consultants. It is important to establish and maintain a high standard of professionalism and expertise, especially when relying on consultant reports as part of consideration regarding granting certificates ofeconomic hardship. We suggest reinstating this language.10-3-3221: CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY:
The proposed process for applying for a Certificate of Ineligibility is currently limited to the discretion of the Director of the Community Development Department. The Conservancy suggests that any applications for a Certificate of Ineligibility be based on a qualified historic preservation consultant’s analysis and applicability to Landmark Designation Criteria. We strongly suggest the insertion of the following language [in red]; otherwise this is an entirely subjective process that has the potential to be abused and limit consideration of qualified and eligible historic properties:
Subsection A, Applications:
“Request for a certificate of ineligibility shall be made by filing a written application with the department of community development. The application shall be completed on a form provided by the department, and shall include all required information, including a written preliminary riir
evaluation, based on a qualified historic preservation consultant’s analysis and applicability to Landmark Designation Criteria.”
Subsection B, Administrative Procedure:
As currently proposed, the ordinance language states “if the director fails to prepare and serve a preliminary evaluation regarding the subject property within the allotted thirty (30) days, such failure will be deemed a finding of ineligibility, and the director shall issue the requested certificate of ineligibility without further delay.”
Because a finding of ineligibility will remain valid for a period ofseven years for a particular property, a failure to act on the application should not automatically result in such a finding. Rather, we recommendthat the applicant be required to resubmit if the allotted timeftame for a decision is not sufficient.
About the Los Angeles Conservancy:
The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with over 6,500 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or afinelaconservancy.org should you have any questions and if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Adrian Scott Fine
Director of Advocacy
cc: Beverly Hills Heritage
Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission
iflHifl /
George J. Mihlsten
Direct Dial: (213) 891-8196
[email protected]
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Moscow
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Shanghai
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
Milan
June 15, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Ryan Gohlich
Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Dr., 1st Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury; June 21, 2022, City Council Hearing re Certificate of Ineligibility
Dear Ryan:
Enclosed is a Historic Resources Assessment Report for 1001 North Roxbury Drive prepared by Laura Taylor Kung, M.A., and Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH, of ASM Affiliates in July, 2021. ASM Affiliates is on the City’s list of approved historic consultants.
ASM Affiliates concludes that 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet the eligibility standards outlined in the City of Beverly Hills Landmark Criteria (Municipal Code Title 10, Ch. 3, Art. 32).
Also enclosed is an Addendum to ASM Affiliates’ 2021 technical report. This addendum confirms that the Luxe Interiors + Designs and Architectural Digest pieces were located during ASM’s preparation of its 2021 report and were not cited because they do not satisfy the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance’s definition of “Exceptional Work.” Further, the three additional pieces that discuss Mark Rios’ remodel of the house also do not meet the Code’s definition of “Exceptional Work.”
The Code requires an “Exceptional Work” be “a remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community.” As ASM Affiliates states, both are focused entirely on the home’s interior design and recent remodel by Mark Rios and do not even mention Carleton Burgess.
Very truly yours,
George J. Mihlsten
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
June 14, 2022
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Councilmembers
Mr. Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Mr. Mark Odell, Urban Designer
ASM Project Number 37250
Prepared for:
Murray Fischer
Prepared by
Laura Taylor Kung, M.A.
Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH
Historic Resources Assessment Report for
1001 North Roxbury Drive,
Beverly Hills, California
20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220
Pasadena, California 91103
(626) 793-7395
Draft Report
July 2021
Historic Resources Assessment Report for
1001 North Roxbury Drive,
Beverly Hills, California
Prepared for:
Murray Fischer
Prepared by
Laura Taylor Kung, M.A.
Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220
Pasadena, California 91103
July 2021
PN 37250
Table of Contents
1001 North Roxbury HRAR i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND............................................................................. 5 HISTORY OF BEVERLY HILLS ..................................................................................... 5 Spanish and Mexican Periods.................................................................................... 5 Beginning of Subdivisions and Townsites .................................................................. 6 Rodeo Land and Water Development/Early Residences............................................ 6 Beverly Hills “Home to the Stars” ............................................................................... 8 Post-World War II .....................................................................................................10 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY............................................................................................12 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY......................................................................... 21 EVALUATION FOR SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................. 45 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS LANDMARK CRITERIA......................................................45 Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 3 Article 3212 (BHMC 10-3-3212)..........................45 INTEGRITY...................................................................................................................46 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 51 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 53 APPENDICES..................................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX A........................................................................................................ Permits APPENDIX B.............................................................................. Records Search Results APPENDIX C.................................................................................................. DPR Forms Table of Contents
ii ASM Affiliates, Inc.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Beverly Hills USGS map............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Aerial Map showing 1001 North Roxbury Drive. ....................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Parcel Map of portion of Beverly Hills Tract. ........................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Photo of Carleton Burgess from the Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1941................................ 15 Figure 6. Vintage postcard showing Jack Benny home at 1002 North Roxbury Drive........................... 15 Figure 7. Photo of Gloria Dale Findlay Naylor from the Daily News, September 27, 1943.................... 16 Figure 8. Portrait of Jane Keithley from imdb.com. ................................................................................ 16 Figure 9. Frederick Cole with models at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, from the Los Angeles Times, September 12, 1950. ............................................................................. 17 Figure 10. Advertisement featuring Frederick Cole at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, 1952. ....................... 17 Figure 11. Photo from real estate section of the Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1984. ........................ 18 Figure 12. House at 921 North Roxbury Drive, looking south. ................................................................. 22 Figure 13. House at 918 North Roxbury Drive, looking southeast. .......................................................... 22 ]Figure 14. Former home of Lucille Ball at 1000 North Roxbury Drive, looking east................................. 23 Figure 15. Former home of Jack Benny at 1002 North Roxbury Drive, looking east. .............................. 23 Figure 16. Overview of east façade of 1001 North Roxbury Drive, looking northwest............................. 24 Figure 17. View of east façade, looking west............................................................................................ 24 Figure 18. View of driveway and east façade, looking southwest. ........................................................... 25 Figure 19. Detail of brick courtyard and garage, looking northeast. ......................................................... 25 Figure 20. Walkway leading to primary entrance, looking northwest. ...................................................... 26 Figure 21. Detail of primary entrance, looking west.................................................................................. 26 Figure 22. Detail of window over primary entrance on east façade, looking west.................................... 27 Figure 23. Detail of dentil molding along cornice on primary facade........................................................ 27 Figure 24. Detail of window on south end of east façade, looking southwest. ......................................... 28 Figure 25. Detail of bay window on south end of east façade, looking north. .......................................... 28 Figure 26. View showing chimney and east façade details. ..................................................................... 29 Figure 27. Detail of bay window on east façade. ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 28. Detail of pedimented dormers on east façade, looking southwest.......................................... 30 Figure 29. Detail of vent and port cochere opening on east façade, looking west. .................................. 30 Figure 30. View of dormers over porte cochere on the east façade, looking northwest........................... 31 Figure 31. View of east façade of garage, looking north. ......................................................................... 31 Figure 32. Detail of windows on east façade of garage, looking northwest.............................................. 32 Figure 33. Detail of oval window on east façade, looking west. ............................................................... 32 Figure 34. Overview of courtyard and north façade of house, looking south. .......................................... 34 Figure 35. Detail of garage, looking southeast. ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 36. View of west façade porte cochere section, looking east........................................................ 35 Figure 37. Detail of first story door and windows on west façade, looking southeast. ............................. 35 Figure 38. View of fenestration on north façade, looking southwest. ....................................................... 36 Figure 39. View of servants’ quarters addition made in 1986, looking south. .......................................... 36 Figure 40. Detail of entrance porch on servants’ quarters, looking south. ............................................... 37 Figure 41. Door to the west of the main entrance on servants’ quarters, looking south. ......................... 37 Figure 42. West façade of servants’ quarters addition, looking northeast................................................ 38 Figure 43. View of south façade of servants’ quarters, looking northeast................................................ 38 Figure 44. Overview of rear (west) façade, looking east. ......................................................................... 39 Figure 45. Detail of south end of west façade, looking southeast. ........................................................... 39 Figure 46. Detail of bay window on south end of west façade, looking east. ........................................... 40 Figure 47. View of south façade, looking northeast.................................................................................. 40 Figure 48. Detail of pilasters on bay window on south façade.................................................................. 41 Figure 49. Overview of east façade of outbuilding, looking west.............................................................. 41 Figure 50. Oblique view of outbuilding, looking southwest. ...................................................................... 42 Figure 51. View of swimming pool, looking west. ..................................................................................... 42 Figure 52. View of koi pond, looking south. .............................................................................................. 43 Figure 53. Overview of pergola structure at tennis courts, looking northwest. ......................................... 43 Introduction
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 1
INTRODUCTION
This Historic Resource Assessment Report (HRAR) was prepared for Murray Fischer by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) to document and evaluate the local significance and landmark eligibility for the property at 1001 North Roxbury Drive in the City of Beverly Hills (City), California (APN 4348-023-020). The property is located on the west side of North Roxbury Drive, north of Sunset Boulevard and east of North Whittier Drive (Figures 1-3). The property does not appear in the 1985-1986 Beverly Hills Historic Resource Survey. This report was prepared in compliance with the City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32 Historic Preservation. This HRAR includes a discussion of the survey methodology, historic context, history of the property, property description, and an evaluation of significance. References and supporting materials are included as appendices.
METHODOLOGY
ASM conducted a historic resources field survey to document the property on May 20, 2021. The intensive-level field survey was conducted by ASM Architectural Historian Laura Taylor Kung who exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. During the survey, multiple photographs were taken of the building’s exterior to document the resource and its setting. The interior of the home was not accessible at the time of the site visit. The building’s plan, architectural features, condition, and historical integrity were noted. A brief windshield survey was conducted to determine the level of architectural cohesion existing in the area.
ASM conducted archival research, beginning with a review of the 1985-1986 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey and the Historic Resources Survey Update completed in 2004 (PCR 2004). The assessment included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and its annual updates, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the California Historic Resources Inventory list maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation in order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the property had been performed. All building permits associated with the house were obtained from the City, and some are included as Appendix A. A records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) to confirm it was not the subject of a previous study; the results have not yet been received, but will be included as Appendix B.
Aerial photographs available through Historic Aerials from 1947-2017 were also consulted to track changes to the house (Historicaerials.com 1947-2014). Due to closures at the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, ASM compiled a list of previous owners using building permits, City Directories, newspapers, census, and vital statistic records. Known owners and occupants were individually researched to determine if anyone associated with the home was historically significant. A search of the Beverly Hills Citizen and other records held at the Beverly Hills Library could not be completed due to library closures. The City’s List of Master Architects was consulted, and further research was conducted on the builder associated with the house.
The City of Beverly Hills landmark criteria were reviewed and used to make a recommendation of eligibility for the property.
Introduction
2 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
Introduction
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 3
Figure 2. Beverly Hills USGS map.
Introduction
4 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 3. Aerial Map showing 1001 North Roxbury Drive.
Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 5
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
HISTORY OF BEVERLY HILLS1
Spanish and Mexican Periods
The first Europeans to come to Beverly Hills were the Spanish explorers of the Gaspar de Portola party who passed through the area in 1769. Travelling west, they reached the southeastern corner of present-day Beverly Hills, noting “a large vineyard of grapes, and an infinity of rose bushes in bloom.” The expedition is commemorated by a State of California plaque in La Cienega Park. Father Crespi, who chronicled the journey, wrote that when the explorers arrived at the little Indian village at the edge of Beverly Hills, the inhabitants approached them, “greeted us . . . and offered food” (Father Crespi translated and quoted, p. 11, Benedict’s History of Beverly Hills). It was not until over 50 years later, around 1822, that the Beverly Hills area was claimed. Mexican settlers Maria Rita Valdez and her husband Vicente Valdez were granted the Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas (The Ranch of the Gathering of the Waters) by the Mexican government. Its boundaries include roughly all of present-day Beverly Hills, as well as territory now in the cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood to the east and south. Part of the additional territory extended as far east as the La Brea Tar Pits. The name Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas was derived from the swamps or “cienegas” created by rain run-off flowing out of Coldwater and Benedict Canyons. Vicente, a retired soldier, died in 1828, leaving Maria in charge of the 4,500-acre ranch. Despite its size, the ranch was a relatively modest undertaking, consisting of the minimum size cattle herd that would keep her ownership of the property valid, two small houses, and a small garden reclaimed from the swamp and springs on the property. The main adobe residence stood near the present northwest corner of Sunset Boulevard and Alpine Drive.
Maria was plagued by the rival claims of a relative, Luciano Valdez, against whom she ultimately won a judgement in 1844. According to standard accounts, in 1852 Maria’s house was the site of an Indian attack. Afterwards, Maria moved to the safety of the pueblo of Los Angeles. In 1854, the ranch was sold for $4,000 to two Americans, Benjamin Davis “Don Benito” Wilson and Major Henry Hancock. Don Benito was a major figure in the development of southern California, with land holdings extending from the San Gabriel Valley to West Los Angeles, and he was instrumental in the founding of the California citrus and viticulture industries. Hancock, a Civil War veteran, surveyed many areas of the Los Angeles basin, and subsequently acquired large tracts around the La Brea Tar Pits. Hancock’s family-owned Rancho La Brea to the east of Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas.
When the Americans bought the property, it had four adobe structures on it. Pierce Benedict, son of Beverly Hills pioneer Edson A. Benedict and editor-in-chief of the 1934 History of Beverly Hills, describes the Valdez adobe as having narrow slit-like windows. Spanish and Mexican era adobes were primitive structures by our standards. Many of them had brea or tar roofs that dripped pitch in hot weather, interior fireplaces that blackened the walls with soot, tamped earth floors, and narrow window and door openings often enclosed with leather flaps. They were usually one story, or occasionally one and one-half stories with an upper loft. Their landscaping was minimal, and many of the features we now think of as being commonly associated with Colonial era architecture in California were introduced during the 1840s and 1850s by American settlers, such as second stories and milled woodwork. One adobe, the Antonio Rocha house located near Robertson and Third on what would later become the Hammel and Denker ranch in the southern part of Beverly Hills, did survive well into the twentieth century.
1 Excerpted from the Beverly Hills Historic Survey, 1985-1986.
Historical Background
6 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Beginning of Subdivisions and Townsites
Hancock’s interest in the ranch was sold to William Workman in 1862. Workman’s family was in the saddlery business, and he and his brother had amassed a great fortune selling equipment to the builders of the railroads. They converted much of their profits into real estate.
Plans to farm the ranch failed because of drought. One hundred twenty-five acres of the ranch in the present-day Pico/Robertson area were sold to James Whitworth in 1866. It included most, but not all, of the area bounded by Robertson, La Cienega, and Wilshire boulevards. One hundred sixty acres at the southern corner of Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas were sold to Basque sheep herders, Domingo Amestoy and Berhnart Domaleche, two years later. That same year, in 1868, wool dealer Edward O. Preuss acquired the remaining 3,608 acres of the original rancho’s 4,539 acres. Also in 1868, Los Angeles grocer Edson A. Benedict filed claim to property in the mouth of what is now Benedict Canyon. His son Pierce later settled on property adjoining his father. The Benedicts raised walnut trees, beans, and other vegetables, and kept bees.
Preuss, now owner of a majority of the original rancho, in turn sold parcels of land to other early settlers, including George P. Ruhland, Frederick L. Buhn, and F. X. Eberle. In 1869, Preuss sold Francis F. P.
Temple a half interest in the ranch. In an attempt to start a German colony like that in Anaheim, the partners created a company to subdivide the ranch. Headed by John P. Schmitz, the De Las Aguas Land Association subdivided the ranch into 75-acre farms, reserving a site at the center for the proposed community of Santa Maria. The town center was bounded approximately by Doheny Drive on the east, Burton Way on the north, Gregory on the south, and El Camino on the west.
The subdivision was a failure, and much of the rancho passed into the hands of two Los Angeles hoteliers who proceeded to grow lima beans on the property. Their first land purchase was made in 1881 and was later added to parcel by parcel. Henry Hammel and Charles Denker, managers of the U.S. Hotel in Los Angeles, proposed their own townsite, to be called Morocco, for the area. Morocco was subdivided in 1888 during the big land boom of 1887-88, the era which saw the start of so many southern California communities, both successful and unsuccessful. Hammel and Denker’s settlement was centered around the train station at the then junction of Burton Way and Santa Monica Boulevard (in the vicinity of Canon and Beverly Drives today) on the Santa Monica-Los Angeles line, which ran along Santa Monica Boulevard, which had also been named Morocco.
Rodeo Land and Water Development/Early Residences
Plans for Morocco were never realized, and the next activities on the ranch centered around a syndicate of investors, known as the Amalgamated Oil Company, who initially hoped to find oil on the property. The Company was composed of such well-known entrepreneurs as W. G. Kerckhoff, W. S. Porter, Max Whittier, and Burton E. Green. Attempts to exploit the deeply buried oil reserves came to naught, and once again the owners of the ranch focused their hopes on subdividing the Beverly Hills area as a real estate development. These same investors in Amalgamated Oil reorganized as the Rodeo Land and Water Company in 1906, this time with railroad tycoon Henry E. Huntington as one of the investors. Burton Green played a leading role in formulating the plans for a garden city. At this time, the ranch boundaries were Whittier Drive on the west, Doheny Drive on the east, Wilshire Boulevard on the south, and the foothills above Sunset Boulevard on the north.
The syndicate hired Wilbur F. Cook, Jr. to plan the community. Cook had worked with Frederick Law Olmsted, famed designer of New York’s Central Park and several garden communities, on the Columbian Exposition of 1893 and the improvements to the White House grounds of 1902. In 1905, he left Olmsted’s firm and moved to Oakland, where he planned parks for that city. Some of Cook’s other Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 7
southern California projects include Exposition Park, the Palos Verdes Estates, Los Angeles Civic Center, and portions of Griffith Park.
The city that Cook planned was to be a relatively balanced community, albeit an affluent one. It was one of the earliest planned communities in southern California, antedating such later cities as Torrance and Rancho Santa Fe. The City was designed so that it shaded from smaller lots at its southern edge to large estates for the wealthy in the foothills at the north. The elite northern portion was divided from the southern portion by the railroad tracks and a commercial triangle between Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards. This triangle was originally known as “Beverly” while the rest of the City, located north of Santa Monica Boulevard, was known as “Beverly Hills.” Land along the railway line was set aside for industry east of Canon Drive.
Between Santa Monica and Sunset Boulevards were four blocks of gently curving streets for upper middle-class families, while the territory north of Sunset was set aside for estates. After Cook’s plan was completed, Crescent, Canon, Beverly, and Rodeo drives were opened between Wilshire and Sunset. A fifth street, Palm Drive, was already in existence, having been part of the Hammel and Denker ranch.
Horticulturist John J. Reeves was retained to develop the master tree planting. He was the one responsible for Beverly Hills’ famous street tree planting concept, dictating that different species of trees be planted for the full length of each street. Reeves supervised the work from a cabin nestled in eucalyptus trees near Sunset Boulevard and Alpine Drive across the street from the old Beverly Hills Nursery, which once occupied the south side of Sunset from Palm to Alpine. The nursery was to play a continually important role in the City’s development, landscaping most of the major residences constructed in the 1920s.
Maps were filed with the County Recorder in 1906 and 1907, and the developers began to build model homes, one of which is still extant at 515 North Canon Drive. Lots were offered for sale at prices ranging from several hundred to $1,000 apiece. Difficult as it is to conceive now, Beverly Hills real estate was not the coveted item in 1907 that it is today. Relatively far from the center of downtown Los Angeles, the Rodeo Land and Water Company’s development languished during the depression of 1907-08 and had to be pulled off the market. Even when the economy recovered in 1910, the market for Beverly Hills real estate still proved sluggish.
As in so many of the boom towns of the 1880s, Beverly Hills needed a large resort hotel to give it prominence and establish its reputation. It got that hotel in 1911, when the Rodeo Land and Water Company, in conjunction with Margaret J. Anderson, commissioned Elmer Grey to build his Craftsman Mission Revival design. Officially opened in 1912 as the Beverly Hills Hotel, Anderson, who had been the manager of the Hollywood Hotel for several years before making the decision to relocate in Beverly Hills “against the advice of friends and associates,” operated the new venture. A one-trolley car system known as the “Dinky” conveyed guests from a Pacific Electric station at the southwest corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Canon Drive up Rodeo Drive to the Hotel.
In 1914, worry over the possibility of a water shortage and the desire to improve the local school system prompted a campaign to incorporate the area. Since the annexation petition required 500 signatures, it appears that Beverly Hills had to round out the total by importing workers from the neighboring railway town of Sherman (now West Hollywood). The original form of government was a Board of Trustees and the Board’s first President was William T. Gould. The original boundaries of the City were much the same as they are today, except for the area south of Wilshire Boulevard, annexed the following year (1915), and the Trousdale Estates, annexed in 1955. Most of the City was still open land, with development scattered around Canon Drive, Beverly Drive, Crescent Drive, and the downtown triangle and Beverly Hills areas.
Historical Background
8 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
The architecture of Beverly Hills in the years following the City’s founding until its major period of residential growth in the 1920s was dominated by the Craftsman and Mission Revival styles as well as by the relatively staid and correct period revival styles—Tudor, Georgian, and Beaux Arts Classicism— that were popular elsewhere in America. The business block built in 1907 at the southwest corner of Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive that housed the Beverly Hills Realty Company was a gabled Tudor Revival building. Also Tudor, in large part, was Burton Green’s house on northwest corner of Lexington Road and Oxford Way (extant, but much remodeled) with a central crenellated Richardsonian Romanesque bay, completed in 1914, and the Kirk B. Johnson house (built in 1912) at the top of Alpine Drive, where the half-timbering had been handled in a Craftsman-like manner. The Roland P. Bishop house (also occupied by financier I. W. Hellman), now demolished, was located in the Oxford, Hartford, Lexington triangle, and was a block-like, Neoclassical structure in the Beaux Arts tradition with Georgian Federal Revival influences. The Max Whittier house of 1916, formerly at the northwest corner of Alpine Drive and Sunset Boulevard and now demolished, was originally one of the earliest versions of an Italian Renaissance villa in Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills “Home to the Stars”
Beverly Hills in 1920 was a city in transition. The majority of its residential and commercial lots were still vacant, but enough development had occurred to make it clear that a town was being formed.
At the same time, there were still many vestiges of its rural past. Clusters of ranch buildings remained at Robertson Boulevard near Wilshire, near Canon Drive and Walden, and along Palm Drive just north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The Los Angeles Auto Speedway occupied the area south of Wilshire and West of Beverly Drive, and a long grove of eucalyptus ran along the approximate route of Charleville. All of the area south of Wilshire, west of Roxbury, and east of Foothill was vacant.
However, by the end of the decade the City was largely developed and had assumed the basic form in which we know it today. It was not until the 1920s that Beverly Hills became a haven for movie stars who joined magnates such as Max Whittier and Burton Green. A perusal of City directories and building permits for this era will readily disclose that the concept of Beverly Hills as the successor to Hollywood as the hometown for people in the entertainment industry was not misplaced. It began in 1920 when national attention was focused on the City as Douglas Fairbanks and his bride Mary Pickford moved into their house “Pickfair” at 1143 Summit Drive, setting the precedent for other entertainment industry figures to follow. It became the “social center of the movie colony and goal of tourists” as W. W. Robinson noted in his 1939 history of Beverly Hills. Within a few years, major entertainment industry figures, such as Gloria Swanson, Will Rogers, and Charles Chaplin, were Beverly Hills residents.
With the addition of the movie colony, the character of Beverly Hills architecture as we know it today began to take shape and define itself. Much of the City’s architecture from the period between the two world wars is indistinguishable from other similarly affluent neighborhoods in other California communities. However, there was a definite element of self-expression and theatricality exhibited in its private houses. Located just outside the Beverly Hills city limits, Thomas Ince’s house, Dias Dorados, designed by Roy Seldon Price in 1922 (since demolished), included among its many attractions a shooting gallery, billiard room, scaled-down roller skating rink, and a desert room where the floors were
Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 9
covered with sand and punctuated by cactus plants. Its mammoth circular party room was decorated as a Mexican cantina.
A portion of the Dias Dorados property, located on the west side of Benedict Canon above Sunset Boulevard, was sold to movie comedian Harold Lloyd, to become Greenacres (constructed 1926-29), with A. E. Hansen as landscape architect, and Webber, Staunton, and Spaulding, as the building architects. The main house, designed in the Italian Renaissance style, had 44 rooms. The entry was 16 feet high and was dominated by an elaborate hand-carved staircase. The ceiling of the living room was coffered and painted with gold leaf. The walls of the solarium were hand painted and took over a year to complete. But the fantasy was not confined to the residence itself. Lloyd’s children played in scaled-down replicas of a thatched English cottage and a French barn located on the grounds. A pool, tennis court, nine-hole golf course, and handball court were among the amenities provided for the adults’ entertainment.
Houses such as Pickfair, Dias Dorados, and Greenacres established a standard which was quickly followed, in varying degrees of extravagance, by silent film stars Charles Chaplin, Tom Mix, Buster Keaton, Gloria Swanson, and Pola Negri. Flamboyant art directors and producers showed how delightfully the art of set decoration could be applied to real life. Best known of all is the Spadena house—a fairy tale, steep-roofed version of an English thatched cottage. It was designed by Henry Oliver in 1921 as a movie set and office for Irvin V. Willat Productions in Culver City, and later moved to its present location at the southeast corner of Carmelita Avenue and Walden Drive.
Other buildings in this long list of distinguished movie colony commissions include Robert Farquhar’s 1927 house occupied by mogul Harry Cohn located on Crescent near Lexington Drive, Gordon Kaufmann’s 1925 house for producer Milton Goetz on North Beverly Drive, and Wallace Neffs’ halfcircular Mediterranean villa on Angelo Drive for director Fred Niblo just outside the city limits. Not to be outdone, wealthy businessmen continued to build their own palaces. Most notable of these is Greystone (501 Doheny Road), built for E. L. Doheny, Jr., whose family then owned an extensive ranch including the property where Trousdale Estates is now located. Gordon Kaufmann was the architect and Paul Thiene was the landscape designer for this monumental Tudor Jacobean residence. The 46,000-squarefoot structure was built of Indiana limestone and roofed with slate. Its expansive floor plan includes a two-story entrance hall, a number of public rooms (library, formal dining room, great hall), several bedroom suites, and a service wing. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the building and grounds are now owned by the City of Beverly Hills. Doheny’s widow occupied the residence until 1955, when she and her second husband, Leigh Battson, moved further up the canyon on Schuyler Road to the Knoll, situated on property which had been acquired by E. L. Doheny, Sr. in the 1920s. This residence, while of more recent construction, continues the tradition of the great Beverly Hills estates.
Sophisticated period revival styles dominated both domestic and commercial architecture in the 1920s.
Most popular were the variations on Hispanic and Mediterranean themes, such as Ralph C. Flewelling’s 1929 Hawthorne School on North Rexford Drive at Elevado Avenue to Walker and Eisen’s Beverly Wilshire Hotel (9500 Wilshire Boulevard) of 1926. The 1920s was a highly eclectic and exuberant period in the architecture of southern California, however, and their styles were popular as well. L. A. Smith’s Beverly Theatre of 1925 at 206 North Beverly Drive is Moorish in inspiration while the 1930 Warner Theatre (now the Beverly; 9404 Wilshire Boulevard) by B. Marcus Priteca and the 1929 Fox Wilshire Theatre (8440 Wilshire Boulevard) by S. Charles Lee are Art Deco. The Beverly Hills City Hall of 1931 by Koerner and Gage is Spanish Churrigueresque and a water treatment plant of 1927 by Salisbury, Bradshaw and Taylor, located in La Cienega Park, is Spanish Romanesque in appearance. The 1929 municipal swimming pool in the same park (demolished in 1978) by Holmes and Sanborn, in which the 1932 Olympic swimmers trained, was in a Spanish style and was noted for its tile work. The Frances V.
Botiller house on Sunset Boulevard near Hillcrest Drive by Msr. Lourdon of Paris employed eighteenth century French forms that were early harbingers of the Beverly Hills love of French imagery that became Historical Background
10 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
evident after World War II (WWII) with the popularity of the mansard roof. Sedate and dignified Tudor homes and romanticized antebellum mansions peppered the community.
By the end of the decade, downtown Beverly Hills had several movie houses, two major hotels, and a “trade at home week” which “set out to prove that the finest shops and stores on the West Coast were in the city.” Downtown development flourished, responding to a population which had risen from less than 700 people in 1920 to 12,000 in 1926.
It was during the 1920s and 1930s that the architectural character of Beverly Hills as we know it today was established. Commercial development in the downtown core, and apartments in the area south of Wilshire and Santa Monica boulevards completed the transformation of the City from a semi-rural outpost into a synonym for urbanity. The duplex, fourplex, and central hall apartment became almost as important housing types in the southern section of the City as single-family homes. The same stylistic range was found in the apartments as was found in the houses, virtually all of them Period Revival or Moderne rather than modern. While the Spanish Colonial Revival predominated during the 1920s, other Period Revival favorites, particularly Normandy and English cottages, were also popular during that decade.
Both phases of the Moderne, the Zigzag mode of the 1920s and the Streamlined Moderne of the 1930s, were often used on commercial building for their stylish up-to-date connotations. Examples are the Premier Market at 425 North Canon Drive, and the Zigzag storefront now occupied by Cyril’s at 370 Beverly Drive. Other notable streamlined designs include Milton Black’s 1937 Payne Furnace Company at 336 Foothill Road, and Stiles Clements’ Beverly Hills High School Swimming Pool of the same year.
Anderton Court (328 North Rodeo Drive), attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright, reveals that architect in an Art Deco-influenced mode.
During the 1930s, Beverly Hills became one of the areas of southern California most closely connected with the development of the Hollywood Regency style. Born of the meeting of Moderne sleekness with the elegance of early nineteenth century architectural forms, it used simple, primary forms and blank wall surfaces to project exclusivity and sophistication. Many of the most elaborate Hollywood Regency buildings by architects such as James Dolena, Honnold and Russell, and Paul Williams were located in the commercial core of Beverly Hills or the large estates to the north of Sunset Boulevard. Among these buildings was the 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival home of actor Hobart Bosworth on Hillcrest Road which was altered into a Hollywood Regency design by James Dolena for actor William Powell in 1935.
John and Donald Parkinson’s Saks Fifth Avenue (9600 Wilshire Boulevard) with Paul R. Williams, circa 1937, and Timothy Pflueger’s I. Magnin and Co. (9634 Wilshire Boulevard) of 1939 showed how well suited this combination of Modem and Period Revival forms was for commercial use. Even Pickfair itself got the Georgianizing treatment so popular in the late 1920s, under the supervision of architect Wallace Neff and interior decorator Elsie De Wolfe. De Wolfe, often known as the mother of American interior decoration, lived in Beverly Hills during the WWII years, and was an important advocate for Period Revivalism during the 1930s and 1940s in southern California.
Beverly Hills may also be responsible for launching the mansard roof to popularity in southern California.
During the 1940s, John Woolf used mansards on two houses, the Chisholm (520 North Beverly Drive) and Pendleton (1032 North Beverly Drive) houses, that were well-known to decorators, and helped create the vogue for mansards.
Post-World War II
While Beverly Hills was fully developed by the end of WWII, it continued to grow in intensity of land use and population by the subdivision of large estates such as Trousdale Estates out of the old Doheny ranch in 1955, and the demolition of existing structures for new apartments, stores, and offices. The construction of J. W. Robinson’s department store in 1952 (9900 Wilshire Boulevard) and Welton Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 11
Becket’s International style Beverly Hilton (9876 Wilshire Boulevard) in 1956 were signs of the City’s continued commercial vitality. During the 1950s, Beverly Hills gained an additional identity as a workplace. It became a daytime home to office workers, as well as a nighttime home to movie stars. The 1920s was the last decade in which downtown Los Angeles was preeminent as an office, financial, and professional center. From this point on, they dispersed to several outlying nodes of activity, such as Beverly Hills, Westwood, and the San Fernando Valley.
While the vast majority of residential construction and remodeling continued to be Period Revival in character, as it remains to this day, some notable modem houses were built in Beverly Hills during the 1940s and 1950s, including Harwell Hamilton Harris’s house for Harold English of 1950 at 1261 Lago Vista.
What was most notable about Beverly Hills domestic architecture in the post-WWII era was the survival of full-blown Period Revival references in a much more committed fashion than might be found elsewhere in southern California. Architects such as Wallace Neff, James Dolena, and John Woolf continued to produce work that had much in common with their pre-war buildings stylistically. Much of their work could be seen as an outgrowth of the interest in the simple Neoclassical forms and the blank surfaces of the 1930s Hollywood Regency.
Modernism did dominate multiple unit housing and commercial and office building from about 1950 on, however. The stucco box apartment house vernacular of flat surfaces, aluminum windows and flat roofs decorated by abstract trim was as prominent in new construction in Beverly Hills as it was elsewhere in southern California. By the 1960s, apartment buildings had grown larger, occupying parcels assembled from several lots, and constructed over underground parking.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Beverly Hills downtown urbanization continued until the westernmost section of the downtown triangle was as densely developed as any southern California office cluster outside of downtown Los Angeles. The most prominent buildings from this era are the New Formalist building at Wilshire and McCarty for Perpetual Savings Bank by Edward D. Stone of 1962, Craig Ellwood’s Mies van der Rohe-like Security Pacific Plaza of 1969 at Wilshire and Bedford, and the Great Western Savings Center of 1972 by William Pereira (southeast corner of La Cienega and Wilshire boulevards). New construction in Beverly Hills is scattered throughout the City, on undeveloped properties in the hills and on redeveloped parcels in the residential and commercial sections of the “flats.” One of the most notable recent additions to the Beverly Hills built environment adopts an innovative solution to the problem of site by building a penthouse atop an existing structure. Frank Gehry’s Wosk Penthouse of 1983 on Roxbury, across from Roxbury Park, represents a striking meeting of an architect with highly personal and abstract art concerns with a client of strong artistic and expressive needs of her own.
Another notable achievement of contemporary architecture in Beverly Hills is the new addition to the civic center designed by Charles Moore and the Urban Innovations Group. The Moore/LUG design was selected as a result of a design competition held by the City of Beverly Hills that was widely acclaimed for its careful and imaginative planning and organization. The new building exhibits sensitivity to the historical context and reinterprets the Mediterranean Revival forms of William Gage’s City Hall built in 1932 and Ralph Flewelling’s design for the Post Office, completed in 1933. The use of a period revival form in new ways shows that the use of stylistic references to the past does not limit the designer to mere copying. Such references as well as a review of the City’s historic resources survey inventory, indicate a heightened awareness of the architectural heritage of the City.
Historical Background
12 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY
The house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is located on lots 1 and 2 of block 170 in the Beverly Hills tract (Figure 4). This block consists of the west side of North Roxbury Drive as it extends from Lexington Road in a semicircle to meet Canon Drive. Although there is a Sanborn map that covers the surrounding areas in 1922, the map only covers the east side of Roxbury Drive as the area was undeveloped at that time. The original building permit on file lists the builder as Carleton Burgess and the owner as Mildred R. Naylor (Appendix A). The permit was issued in 1941, and the house was completed in 1942. Mildred Ralph was born in Missouri in 1898. She married Howard Morton Naylor in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1919. He was born in New York in 1888 and worked as a stockbroker and automobile salesman before founding the H.M. Naylor Oil Company (U.S. Census Bureau 1920, 1930). The couple had one son, Robert H. Naylor, born in 1925, and lived in Kansas City prior to 1940. Howard Naylor indicated he was married on his registration card for WWII in 1942, but also gave an address other than Roxbury Drive (National Archives 2010). Although no divorce record was located, Mildred Naylor remarried Walter C.
James in 1944 and was divorced by that time (California Department of Public Health 2017). It is likely that Mildred received a divorce settlement that made it possible to purchase the large lot and commission a popular builder to construct the home she lived in for less than two years.
Carleton Burgess was a local builder who had designed several homes in the area including the two across the street at 1000 and 1002 North Roxbury Drive. Although his name was well-known in Beverly Hills at that time, not much is known about his life. Born in Wisconsin in 1900, his father was vice-president of a knitting factory prior to working at a glove manufacturing company (U.S. Census Bureau 1910, 1920).
Burgess moved to Los Angeles before 1922 when he married Ivo C. Copeland (California Department of Public Health 2017). The couple lived on Harvard Boulevard prior to building their home at 234 South Peck Drive in 1929 (California State Library 2017). Burgess owned and developed several other properties in 1929 including 250 South Peck Drive, 519 Alta Drive, and 264 South Rodeo Drive (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Most of these building permits list Burgess as the owner and the contractor, but a few also have an architect. His own home at 254 South Peck Drive was designed by Sydney T. Rogers and the others by G. McAlister and Howard Wells (City of Beverly Hills 2021). By the time of the 1930 census, he was living in the home on South Peck Drive with his wife and two children. He listed his occupation as real estate broker and answered “no” to the question of whether he attended school (U.S.
Census Bureau 1930). McAlister was also the architect for the home he built at 622 Arden Drive in 1930 (City of Beverly Hills 2021). As Burgess continued to develop properties into the 1930s, he hired fewer architects and designed the homes himself. These include: 904 Whittier Drive (1932), his own house at 1724 Chevy Chase Drive (1935), 720 Maple Drive (1935), 1000 Roxbury Drive (1935), 917 Whittier Drive (1936), 907 Whittier Drive (1936), 1218 Coldwater Canyon (1937), 915 Whittier Drive (1937), and the home for Jack Benny at 1002 Roxbury Drive (1937). Most of these homes were in the same area of Beverly Hills, but he occasionally had projects outside of the neighborhood. In 1938 he built a home in Van Nuys at 6915 Cedros and that same year worked with architect John S. Butler to build 235 Ladera Drive in Holmby Hills (City of Los Angeles 2021).
Carleton Burgess and his wife were regularly mentioned in the society pages as they hosted and attended dinner parties and participated in the “Nine O’Clock Players,” a charity acting troupe through the Assistance League (Los Angeles Times 1937) (Figure 5). His active social life led to further commissions as celebrities such as Lucille Ball and George Burns and Gracie Allen moved into his homes and requested additional work. At the time of the 1940 census, the family was living at the house on Chevy Chase Drive and Burgess listed his occupation as building contractor (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). At this point he also stated that he had completed more than five years of college. His obituary noted that he had attended Stanford University and Amherst College, but limited research could not confirm this (Los Angeles Times 1994). Burgess built two more houses for his family in 1941: a beach house at 1206 West Bay Street in Newport Beach and a ranch house at 10957 Bellagio Road. In 1943, their daughter was Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 13
engaged, and Burgess served in the Army Corps of Engineers in Oregon and later in Stockton (Los Angeles Times 1943a, 1943b). At some point prior to 1945, Burgess and Ivo Copeland were divorced, and he married a woman named Mary Katherine who filed for divorce three years later (Los Angeles Times 1948). He built another home at 414 Cascada Way in 1950, and married Barbara Ann Evans in 1952 (City of Los Angeles 2021; Los Angeles Times 1994). He died in 1994 at the age of 93.
In 1941, Carleton Burgess was at the height of his career. The summer before he planned the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, he completed a one-room addition for Jack Benny at the house across the street (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Mildred Naylor would have known about the houses in the area that Burgess had designed and chose her builder accordingly. Although he sometimes designed homes in the Mediterranean or Monterrey styles, Colonial Revival, particularly with Georgian influences, was clearly his most common style. Both 1000 and 1002 North Roxbury Drive have elements of the Colonial Revival. Although it is currently the color of natural brick, Jack Benny’s home at 1002 North Roxbury Drive was originally white with features such as the bay windows, French doors with balconettes, and arched windows like the home at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (Figure 6). Mildred Naylor did not own the home for long, but during that time her son Robert Naylor met Gloria Dale Findlay at a party held at the house in 1942 (Figure 7). They married the following year, but then Robert was killed in Okinawa during WWII. The ensuing battle between Robert’s mother and wife over the trust fund Robert was due to inherit from his father was well-covered in the local newspapers. As part of the suit Gloria Naylor claimed Mildred had attempted to have their marriage annulled soon after the couple were wed in Arizona (Hollywood Citizen-News 1947).
By the time Mildred Naylor remarried in 1944, the house had new occupants. Alfred A. Santell was born in San Francisco in 1895. He began working as a scriptwriter in 1914 and eventually went on to work for Columbia Pictures, RKO, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount (The Californian 1981). He directed 43 movies including Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1932) and Winterset (1938) starring Burgess Meredith (Internet Movie Database 2021). In 1934 he married actress Jane Keithley who had starred in a movie directed by Santell, The Sea Wolf, in 1930 (Arizona Republic 1932) (Figure 8). In 1942, Santell’s wife attempted to divorce him claiming cruelty, but the couple reconciled the following year (Los Angeles Evening Citizen News 1943). The couple had four children under nine years of age and were living in the house when Jane Santell died in 1944 after a seven-week illness (Los Angeles Times 1944).
The purchase of the home by the next owner also had its share of controversy. Swimsuit designer Frederick Cole used corporate funds to buy the home because its pool made a good backdrop for fashion shows, but the board of directors at Cole of California disagreed with this reasoning (Daily News 1948).
Frederick Cole was born in Los Angeles in 1901. He worked as a silent film actor during the 1920s and started a ladies underwear company in 1925. During the war, the company made parachutes and later turned their attention to swimwear (Pasadena Independent 1964). Cole knew that attaching the brand with Hollywood glamour would help the company, and in 1950 signed swimming film star Esther Williams to promote the line (Encyclopedia of Fashion 2021). The house, which the Cole family occupied from 1946 to 1954, probably did help the brand in the way Cole envisioned. It was the site of fashion shows and photo shoots and was also featured in a whiskey advertisement (Figures 9 and 10). Frederick Cole’s daughter Anne lived in the home and eventually created her own line of swimwear known for its feminine traditional designs (Encyclopedia of Fashion 2021).
Historical Background
14 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 4. Parcel Map of portion of Beverly Hills Tract.
Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 15
Figure 5. Photo of Carleton Burgess from the Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1941.
Figure 6. Vintage postcard showing Jack Benny home at 1002 North Roxbury Drive.
Historical Background
16 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 8. Portrait of Jane Keithley from imdb.com.
Figure 7. Photo of Gloria Dale Findlay Naylor
from the Daily News, September 27, 1943.
Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 17
Figure 9. Frederick Cole with models
at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, from the
Los Angeles Times,
September 12, 1950.
Figure 10. Advertisement featuring
Frederick Cole at
1001 North Roxbury Drive, 1952.
Historical Background
18 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
In 1953, sale ads for the “sparkling Georgian Colonial” appeared in the Los Angeles Times, but it is not clear if it was sold at this time (Los Angeles Times 1953). Voter registration records indicated Johan Peder Rinde lived in the home from 1954 to 1956 (California State Library 2017). Born in Norway, Rinde became a U.S. citizen and entered the oil business in California. He discovered oil in the Bakersfield area in 1953 (Los Angeles Times 1967). A 1963 article about a party for the release of a book by actress Olivia de Havilland notes that the hosts of the party were Mr. and Mrs. Hall Bartlett at their home at the Roxbury address (Los Angeles Evening Citizen News 1963). Hall Bartlett was a writer, producer, and director of experimental films dealing with social issues (Internet Movie Database 2021). It does not appear the Bartletts lived in the home for very long and by 1964 building permits indicate there was a new owner.
Joseph Mitchell was born in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1922 and moved to Los Angeles with his family as a child. He studied at the University of California Los Angeles before dropping out to serve in the Army during WWII. After the war, he joined the company his father founded in 1940 selling low-cost disability insurance. The Mitchells built the company into Beneficial Standard Corporation, a financial services holding company active in life and casualty insurance and real estate and mortgage loans (Charlotte Observer 2004). The Mitchell family lived in the home for nearly 20 years and made some changes during their time there. In 1964 they added a room and made several interior alterations (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Although Mitchell attempted to sell the house in 1965, the family stayed and there are no other listings until 1984 (Los Angeles Times 1965, 1984) (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Photo from real estate section of the Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1984.
Historical Background
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 19
The next owner, Allen David Kohl, began to make alterations to the home in 1986 (City of Beverly Hills 2021). He was born in Wisconsin in 1936 to Maxwell and Mary Kohl (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). Max Kohl started opening traditional grocery stores in 1927 before opening his first supermarket in 1946 (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 2002). He went on to open his first department store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, in 1962. By 1970 the company had 48 supermarkets and five department stores in the Milwaukee area. Max’s son Sidney became board chairman in 1970 with his son Herbert elected president and Allen as vice-president (Journal Times 1970). A group of investors purchased the company in 1986, and the Kohl’s stores are now operating in all states except for Hawaii. The Kohls made changes to the site including the demolition of the old swimming pool and the addition of a new pool and tennis courts. They also added servants’ quarters, remodeled the second story, and repaired chimneys damaged in the earthquake (City of Beverly Hills 2021; Appendix A).
The following owner, social networking pioneer David Bohnett, replaced the wood shingle roof with the current slate and remodeled the rear and side façades of the home in 2006 (City of Beverly Hills 2021).
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 21
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is located on the west side of the street just north of Lexington Road and east of Whittier Drive. Roxbury Drive is a residential street of single-family homes primarily built during the 1930s with only a few examples of more recent infill. The house to the south at 921 North Roxbury Drive was built in 1989 (Figure 12) and the house across the street from it at 918 North Roxbury Drive dates to 2000 (Figure 13). The house to the north, 1007 North Roxbury Drive, was completed in 1929. The two homes across the street were also built by Carleton Burgess. Lucille Ball lived in 1000 North Roxbury Drive built in 1936 (Figure 14) and Jack Benny lived in 1002 North Roxbury Drive which was built in 1937 (Figure 15).
The house is situated on a double corner lot with an expansive front lawn and several mature trees (Figure 16). The two-story Colonial Revival-style home has a sprawling rectangular plan with its primary (east) façade along Roxbury Drive (Figure 17). A brick driveway near the north end of the parcel goes through a gated porte cochere which leads to a rear brick-paved area where the garages can be accessed (Figures 18 and 19). A brick walkway leads to the central main entrance which is accessed by a set of brick steps (Figures 20 and 21). The entrance consists of a paneled wood door with a thick surround and leaded glass transom. Centered above the door is a pedimented dormer with an arched opening containing divided pane French doors with decorative shutters capped by a fanlight (Figure 22). A decorative iron balustrade spans the lower third of the opening.
Most of the home is clad in brick veneer with areas of stucco and wide wood clapboards. The complex cross gable roof is covered with slate shingles with dentil molding details on the primary façade (Figure 23). The south end of the primary façade is punctuated by an arched opening with tall decorative shutters that might have originally been a door but is now an opaque diamond-pane window with a solid lower panel (Figure 24). To the north is a double-hung sash window behind a vent with nine rectangular openings. The side gable roof of this section has a gabled dormer with an arched opening containing a pair of casement sash. The next section to the north contains the primary entrance on the north side with a large projecting bay window to the south (Figure 25). The three-part bay has a central section with 24 lights flanked by 12-light casements with lower panels. Centered above on the second story is a dormer with French doors identical to the one above the entrance. A large brick chimney with dentil molding details projects above the roof of this section (Figure 26).
To the north of the entrance is a slightly projecting gable front containing a bay window similar to the one to the south (Figure 27). The gable has corner returns with dentil molding below the cornice. The second story is punctuated by French doors in an arched opening with a fanlight and shutters identical to the two others. A smaller pedimented gable is located on the north side of the projecting gable (Figure 28). It contains a two-over-four double-hung sash in a recessed arched opening. Another brick chimney with a cap and dentil molding projects above the roof of this section. The side-gabled section to the north contains the porte cochere. A two-over-two double-hung sash is located south of the gate behind a concrete vent with diamond-shaped openings (Figure 29). Three evenly spaced pedimented dormers punctuate the roof above the porte cochere (Figure 30). Each contains a two-over-four double-hung sash in a recessed arched opening. The section to the north of the porte cochere is one-story and clad with wide wood clapboards (Figure 31). The east façade of this section is punctuated by three evenly spaced threeover-three double-hung sash with paneled wood shutters (Figure 32). A pedimented dormer containing a two-over-four double-hung sash is a recessed arched opening is centered on the roof. An additional shed dormer with vertical cladding and an oval leaded glass window is located to the south of the dormer (Figure 33).
Description of Property
22 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 12. House at 921 North Roxbury Drive, looking south.
Figure 13. House at 918 North Roxbury Drive, looking southeast.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 23
Figure 14. Former home of Lucille Ball at 1000 North Roxbury Drive, looking east.
Figure 15. Former home of Jack Benny at 1002 North Roxbury Drive, looking east.
Description of Property
24 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 16. Overview of east façade of 1001 North Roxbury Drive, looking northwest.
Figure 17. View of east façade, looking west.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 25
Figure 18. View of driveway and east façade, looking southwest.
Figure 19. Detail of brick courtyard and garage, looking northeast.
Description of Property
26 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 20. Walkway leading to primary entrance, looking northwest.
Figure 21. Detail of primary entrance, looking west.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 27
Figure 22. Detail of window over primary entrance on east façade, looking west.
Figure 23. Detail of dentil molding along cornice on primary facade.
Description of Property
28 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 24. Detail of window on south end of east façade, looking southwest.
Figure 25. Detail of bay window on south end of east façade, looking north.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 29
Figure 26. View showing chimney and east façade details.
Figure 27. Detail of bay window on east façade.
Description of Property
30 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 28. Detail of pedimented dormers on east façade, looking southwest.
Figure 29. Detail of vent and port cochere opening on east façade, looking west.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 31
Figure 30. View of dormers over porte cochere on the east façade, looking northwest.
Figure 31. View of east façade of garage, looking north.
Description of Property
32 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 32. Detail of windows on east façade of garage, looking northwest.
Figure 33. Detail of oval window on east façade, looking west.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 33
The porte cochere leads to a courtyard where the west and north façades of the north half of the house are visible (Figure 34). The north garage section is mostly stucco-clad on the rear façade with some wide clapboards and a vent in the gable end (Figure 35). A wide shed dormer with a pair of multi-pane sash punctuates with roof above the garage. Two two-car garages with paneled roll-up doors are located below. The porte cochere section to the south is also clad in stucco on the rear façade (Figure 36). The second story contains an iron balconette with decorative scrolled brackets below. It is accessed by a pair of narrow French doors. The doors are flanked by recessed two-over-two double-hung sash with paneled shutters. The first story contains the porte cochere with a pair of three-over-three double-hung sash to the north. A door with six glazed panes and lower wood panel is located on the north façade of this section (Figure 37).
The north façade of the main house faces the courtyard where its cross-gable roof form is visible. The walls are clad in stucco with a circular vent in the gable end. The second story slightly overhangs the first, with three three-over-three double-hung windows with shutters toward the west end (Figure 38). First story fenestration consists of another three-over-three double-hung sash window with shutters adjacent to the porte cochere, and three narrower two-over-two double-hung sash in a projecting bay to the west.
Further west of this section is the one-story servants’ quarters addition made in 1986 (Figure 39). Capped by a side-facing gable roof, the wing has a projecting gabled porch supported by flanking columns with an enclosed central entrance of double wood doors. This entrance is flanked by two glazed doors with lower wood panels (Figure 40). A pair of two-over-two double-hung sash windows with shutters is located to the east of the porch. A low brick wall obscures an additional French door on the north façade of the addition (Figure 41). The west side of the servants’ quarters has clapboards in the gable end punctuated with a circular vent (Figure 42). Three two-over-four double-hung sash with shutters are centered on the façade below. The north façade has a small, enclosed patio with a pair of two-over-four double-hung sash to the west and a single three-over-three double-hung sash to the east (Figure 43). An entrance consisting of a wood door with a glazed upper panel is located to the east of the window.
The rear (west) façade has been extensively altered (Figure 44). The area adjacent to the addition has a large multi-pane picture window on the first story and a second story patio with French doors and three large multi-pane windows. The central portion of the façade features a second-story balcony with an iron balustrade accessed by seven pairs of French doors spanning the façade. The first story has three arched openings beneath the balcony with a pair of French doors on the south end and another at a reentrant angle on the north façade (Figure 45). The south end of the west façade has brick veneer like the front with a large bay window on the first story (Figure 46). The cornice has dentil molding details below the second story which features three two-over-four double-hung sash windows with individual shutters. The gable end has wood clapboard details and a triangular open vent. The south façade has a front-facing gable with corner returns and a triangular vent in the gable end (Figure 47). The second story has a group of four tall two-over-four double-hung sash with lower wood panels. Each window has narrow decorative wood shutters. The first story features a rounded projecting bay window with flanking pilasters (Figure 48).
The one-story outbuilding is capped by a side gable roof with a cupola and wood balustrade along the east façade of the roof (Figure 49). Open, flat-roof porches supported by columns are located on the north and south façades. The east façade facing the house has four French doors accessed by a small brick patio with a low step. The walls are clad in wide wood clapboards with brick veneer along the lower third.
Additional two-over-four double-hung sash windows are located on the north and south façades (Figure 50). The property also features a swimming pool, koi pond, and tennis courts with a pergola structure (Figures 51-53).
The interior of the property was not accessible at the time of the site visit.
Description of Property
34 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 34. Overview of courtyard and north façade of house, looking south.
Figure 35. Detail of garage, looking southeast.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 35
Figure 36. View of west façade porte cochere section, looking east.
Figure 37. Detail of first story door and windows on west façade, looking southeast.
Description of Property
36 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 38. View of fenestration on north façade, looking southwest.
Figure 39. View of servants’ quarters addition made in 1986, looking south.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 37
Figure 40. Detail of entrance porch on servants’ quarters, looking south.
Figure 41. Door to the west of the main entrance on servants’ quarters, looking south.
Description of Property
38 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 42. West façade of servants’ quarters addition, looking northeast.
Figure 43. View of south façade of servants’ quarters, looking northeast.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 39
Figure 44. Overview of rear (west) façade, looking east.
Figure 45. Detail of south end of west façade, looking southeast.
Description of Property
40 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 46. Detail of bay window on south end of west façade, looking east.
Figure 47. View of south façade, looking northeast.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 41
Figure 48. Detail of pilasters on bay window on south façade.
Figure 49. Overview of east façade of outbuilding, looking west.
Description of Property
42 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 50. Oblique view of outbuilding, looking southwest.
Figure 51. View of swimming pool, looking west.
Description of Property
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 43
Figure 52. View of koi pond, looking south.
Figure 53. Overview of pergola structure at tennis courts, looking northwest.
Evaluation for Significance
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 45
EVALUATION FOR SIGNIFICANCE
In analyzing the historical significance of the subject property, criteria for designation under the City’s local landmark program was considered.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS LANDMARK CRITERIA
Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 3 Article 3212 (BHMC 10-3-3212) Landmark Designation Criteria
An eligible property may be nominated and designated as a landmark if it satisfies the requirements set forth below.
A. A landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements:
1. It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and
4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
1. It is listed on the national register of historic places;
2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance, and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person's endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
5. It is an iconic property; or
6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property [Ord. 15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015].
Evaluation for Significance
46 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
INTEGRITY
To determine whether the property retained integrity, ASM referred to the NRHP publication How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15, which establishes how to evaluate the integrity of a property: “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 1998). The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to the concept of integrity. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a property requires knowing why, where, and when a property is significant. To retain historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, aspects of integrity:
1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, and refers to the character of the site and the relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often refers to the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. These features can be either natural or manmade, including vegetation, paths, fences, and relationships between other features or open space.
4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period or time, and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory, and can be applied to the property as a whole, or to individual components.
6. 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, when taken together, convey the property’s historic character.
7. Association is the direct link between the important historic event or person and a historic property
Application of City Landmark Criteria
A. A Landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements.
1. It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance; Building permits establish that the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was completed in 1942 and therefore is at least 45 years of age and satisfies this requirement.
2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period; The house was built in the Colonial Revival style, with some Georgian elements. This style was popular throughout Los Angeles and particularly Beverly Hills in the 1930s and 1940s as the City’s residential neighborhoods were developed. Stylistically, the house demonstrates many of the character-defining features of the Colonial Revival style (McAlester 2018). These include:
• Symmetrical façade
• Brick exterior
Evaluation for Significance
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 47
• Gabled roof with corner returns
• Divided light double-hung sash windows
• Pedimented dormers
• Attached pilasters, fanlights and bay windows
As it embodies many of the distinctive characteristics of the Colonial Revival style and has high aesthetic value, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive satisfies this requirement.
3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; Although the significant alterations have been made at the rear of the house, the primary façade has not been substantially altered since its initial construction in 1942.
Location The house has not been moved and retains integrity of location.
Design The essential elements of the form, structure, and style of the home including fenestration patterns and overall plan have not been altered and the house retains integrity of design.
Setting The physical surroundings including the setback, large lawn and relationship to the street have not been significantly altered. Based on aerial photos, the driveway may have been added after initial construction, but did not have a large impact of the integrity of setting overall.
Materials The house retains most of its original materials such as brick, wood frame windows, and clapboard details. The roof has been changed from wood shingles to slate, but overall, the property retains fair integrity of materials.
Workmanship Evidence of workmanship in details such as the dentil molding, pedimented dormers, and corner returns is still evident and the property retains integrity of workmanship.
Feeling The property retains the aesthetic of the Colonial Revival style and the characterdefining features that convey its historic character. Therefore, it retains integrity of feeling.
Association The house continues to reflect the Colonial Revival style and therefore retains integrity of association.
Overall, the house retains all seven aspects of integrity and therefore retains substantial integrity from its period of significance and satisfies this requirement.
4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
Because of its historic architectural character as the work of a master builder and its contribution to the City’s architectural heritage, the property is considered to have historic value. Therefore, the property satisfies this requirement.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
1. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; The property is not listed on the NRHP and does not meet this requirement.
Evaluation for Significance
48 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
According to the definitions in the Ordinance, a master architect is “an architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual genius influenced his or her age.” Additionally, a List of Local Master Architects was compiled and adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission in 2012. Although builder Carleton Burgess was not on this initial list, his name was added by the Commission and included on the amended list in 2015.
However, the ordinance further states that it must be an “exceptional work” by the architect and an exceptional work is defined as:
“A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following:
a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum..”
Because Carleton Burgess was a builder and not a trained architect, his houses will rarely be able to meet this requirement as they were not recognized by members of the architectural community. The Avery Index, individual indexes of Architectural Record and Architectural Digest, as well as popular publications such as House Beautiful, Sunset, and Better Homes and Gardens were searched to confirm that no publication featured this house. Even the home section of the Los Angeles Times did not include documentation of any of Burgess home with the exception of the interior of the house at Newport Beach (Los Angeles Times 1942). His name did not appear in any scholarly work, and he won no awards throughout his career.
Therefore, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance, and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person’s endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous; Some significant people such as director Alfred Santell, swimwear designer Frederick Cole, and Kohl’s department store vice-president Allen Kohl are associated with the house, but not with a momentous event. Furthermore, the wording in the Ordinance stipulates the house must be an “exceptional work” (defined above) and as discussed in B2 above, the house does not meet the definition of an “exceptional work.” Therefore, the house does not meet this requirement.
4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
No one of great local prominence was identified. Additionally, the wording in the Ordinance stipulates that it must be “an exceptional property,” and therefore for the reasons outlined above, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
Evaluation for Significance
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 49
5. It is an iconic property;
According to the Ordinance, an iconic property is: “A property that has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Beverly Hills and forms part of the city’s identity to the world at large.” As it is not a well-known property to visitors or residents, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
The owner is not seeking landmark designation, therefore the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
Conclusion
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 51
CONCLUSION
Although the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive embodies characteristics of the Georgian variant of the Colonial Revival style and has been associated with significant individuals, it does not meet the criteria for landmark designation according to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC 10-3-3212). It satisfies all four requirements of criterion A as it is 45 years old (A1), has an architectural style with high aesthetic value (A2), retains sufficient integrity to its period of significance (A3) and has historic value to the community (A4). However, it fails to meet any of the additional requirements outlined in criterion B. It is not listed in the NRHP (B1), is not an “exceptional work” by a master architect (B2), is not an “exceptional property” occupied by a person of great national or local significance (B3, B4), is not an iconic property (B5), and does not have an owner seeking landmark designation (B6). Therefore, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is recommended not eligible for landmark designation at this time.
References
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 53
REFERENCES
Arizona Republic
1932 “Film Director Weds at Yuma.” May 27, p. 4.
California Department of Public Health
2017 California, U.S., County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980. Accessed through ancestry.com; July 2021.
California State Library
2017 California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968. Accessed through ancestry.com; July 2021.
The Californian (Salinas, California)
1981 “Famed Film Director Alfred A. Santell Dies.” June 22, p. 8.
Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina)
2004 “Joseph Mitchell.” December 9, p. 22.
City of Beverly Hills
1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey.
2021 Building Permits. Available through https://cs.beverlyhills.org/cs/. Accessed July 2021.
City of Los Angeles
2021 Building Permits. Available through https://www.ladbs.org/services/check-status/onlinebuilding-records. Accessed July 2021.
Daily News (Los Angeles, California)
1948 “Firm Officers Row Over Swank Home.” April 12, p. 5.
Encyclopedia of Fashion
2021 Online at http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/Ch-Da/Cole-of-California.html. Accessed July 2021.
Historicaerials.com
1947 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1948 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1952 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1953 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1964 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1972 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1980 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1989 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1994 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2003 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2004 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2005 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2009 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2010 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2012 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2014 Aerial image of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. www.historicaerials.com References
54 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Hollywood Citizen-News
1947 “War Widow Sues Mate’s Mother for Half Million.” March 1, p. 9.
Internet Movie Database (IMDB)
2021 Online at https://www.imdb.com. Accessed July 2021.
Journal Times (Racine, Wisconsin)
1970 “Kohl Stores Promote 3.” March 17, p. 17.
Los Angeles Evening Citizen News
1943 “Paynes Divorced; Santell Suit Off.” March 12, p. 23. 1963 “Best Sellers Party Scheduled Today.” October 26, p. 2.
Los Angeles Times
1937 “Chance Chatter.” March 12, p. 23.
1942 “Beach Homes for Double Duty.” August 16, p. 87.
1943a “Purely Personal.” May 22, p. 22.
1943b “Engagements.” June 21, p. 24.
1944 “Director Santell’s Wife Succumbs.” September 15, p. 11. 1948 “Wife Divorces Building Contractor.” July 17, p. 15. 1953 Classifieds. April 26, p. 23.
1965 Classifieds. April 18, p. 242.
1967 ‘Counting on his Heritage: L.A. Man Battles for Norway Drilling Rights.” February 6, p. 44. 1984 “Real Estate.” May 3, p. 212.
1994 “Burgess, Carleton Lyle.” January 15, p. 136.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester
2018 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
2002 “1st Kohl’s Supermarket to be next Lena’s.” June 28.
National Archives
2010 World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942. Available through ancestry.com. Accessed July 2021.
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 1998 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. NRHP Bulletin No. 15.
Washington, D.C.
PCR Services Corporation
2004 Historic Resources Survey Report.
Pasadena Independent
1964 “Funeral Set Thursday for Frederick Cole.” September 21, p. 16.
United States Census Bureau
1910 The Thirteenth Census of the United States. Los Angeles County. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available through ancestry.com.
Accessed July 2021.
References
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 55
1920 The Fourteenth Census of the United States. Los Angeles County. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available through ancestry.com.
Accessed July 2021.
1930 The Fifteenth Census of the United States. Los Angeles County. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available through ancestry.com.
Accessed July 2021.
1940 The Sixteenth Census of the United States. Los Angeles County. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available through ancestry.com.
Accessed July 2021.
Appendices
1001 North Roxbury HRAR 57
APPENDICES
Appendices
1001 North Roxbury HRAR
APPENDIX A
Permits
Appendices
1001 North Roxbury HRAR
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
Appendices
1001 North Roxbury HRAR
APPENDIX C
DPR Forms
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Beverly Hills Date 1995 S.B. B.M.
c. Address 1001 North Roxbury Drive City Beverly Hills Zip 90210 d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN; e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel#, directions to resource, elevation, etc.) APN 4348-023-020 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is located on the west side of the street just north of Lexington Road and east of Whittier Drive.
Roxbury Drive is a residential street of single-family homes primarily built during the 1930s with only a few examples of more recent infill.
The house to the south at 921 North Roxbury Drive was built in 1989 and the house across the street from it at 918 North Roxbury Drive dates to 2000. The house to the north, 1007 North Roxbury Drive, was completed in 1929. The two homes across the street were also built by Carleton Burgess. Lucille Ball lived in 1000 North Roxbury Drive built in 1936 and Jack Benny lived in 1002 North Roxbury Drive which was built in 1937.
The house is situated on a double corner lot with an expansive front lawn and several mature trees. The two-story Colonial Revival-style home has a sprawling rectangular plan with its primary (east) façade along Roxbury Drive. A brick driveway near the north end of the parcel goes through a gated porte cochere which leads to a rear brick-paved area where the garages can be accessed. (continued on pg. 3)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession#)
View of east façade looking west.
Photo taken on May 20, 2021.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
Historic Prehistoric Both
1942
Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Laura Taylor Kung
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220
Pasadena, CA 91103
*P9. Date Recorded: July 2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (cite survey report and sources or enter “none.”)
Historic Resources Assessment Report for 1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California (2021), ASM Affiliates, Inc. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1001 North Roxbury Drive B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence
B4. Present Use: Single-family residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed in 1942; rear addition in 1986; remodeled in 2006 and 2011.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: Carleton Burgess b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area: City of Beverly Hills Period of Significance: N/A Property
Type:
Residential Applicable
Criteria:
N/A
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is located on lots 1 and 2 of block 170 in the Beverly Hills tract. This block consists of the west side of North Roxbury Drive as it extends from Lexington Road in a semicircle to meet Canon Drive. Although there is a Sanborn map that covers the surrounding areas in 1922, the map only covers the east side of Roxbury Drive as the area was undeveloped at that time.
The original building permit on file lists the builder as Carleton Burgess and the owner as Mildred R. Naylor. The permit was issued in 1941, and the house was completed in 1942. Mildred Ralph was born in Missouri in 1898. She married Howard Morton Naylor in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1919. He was born in New York in 1888 and worked as a stockbroker and automobile salesman before founding the H.M. Naylor Oil Company (U.S. Census Bureau 1920, 1930). The couple had one son, Robert H. Naylor, born in 1925, and lived in Kansas City prior to 1940. Howard Naylor indicated he was married on his registration card for WWII in 1942, but also gave an address other than Roxbury Drive (National Archives 2010). Although no divorce record was located, Mildred Naylor remarried Walter C. James in 1944 and was divorced by that time (California Department of Public Health 2017). It is likely that Mildred received a divorce settlement that made it possible to purchase the large lot and commission a popular builder to construct the home she lived in for less than two years. (continued on page 3)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) None *B12. References: See report Sketch Map with north arrow required.
B13. Remarks: None
*B14.
Evaluator:
Laura Taylor Kung and Shannon Davis
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: July 2020
(This space is reserved for official comments)
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
P3a. Description (continued from page 1)
A brick walkway leads to the central main entrance which is accessed by a set of brick steps. The entrance consists of a paneled wood door with a thick surround and leaded glass transom. Centered above the door is a pedimented dormer with an arched opening containing divided pane French doors with decorative shutters capped by a fanlight. A decorative iron balustrade spans the lower third of the opening.
Most of the home is clad in brick veneer with areas of stucco and wide wood clapboards. The complex cross gable roof is covered with slate shingles with dentil molding details on the primary façade. The south end of the primary façade is punctuated by an arched opening with tall decorative shutters that might have originally been a door but is now an opaque diamond-pane window with a solid lower panel.
To the north is a double-hung sash window behind a vent with nine rectangular openings. The side gable roof of this section has a gabled dormer with an arched opening containing a pair of casement sash. The next section to the north contains the primary entrance on the north side with a large projecting bay window to the south. The three-part bay has a central section with 24 lights flanked by 12-light casements with lower panels. Centered above on the second story is a dormer with French doors identical to the one above the entrance.
A large brick chimney with dentil molding details projects above the roof of this section.
To the north of the entrance is a slightly projecting gable front containing a bay window similar to the one to the south. The gable has corner returns with dentil molding below the cornice. The second story is punctuated by French doors in an arched opening with a fanlight and shutters identical to the two others. A smaller pedimented gable is located on the north side of the projecting gable. It contains a twoover-four double-hung sash in a recessed arched opening. Another brick chimney with a cap and dentil molding projects above the roof of this section. The side-gabled section to the north contains the porte cochere. A two-over-two double-hung sash is located south of the gate behind a concrete vent with diamond-shaped openings. Three evenly spaced pedimented dormers punctuate the roof above the porte cochere. Each contains a two-over-four double-hung sash in a recessed arched opening. The section to the north of the porte cochere is one-story and clad with wide wood clapboards. The east façade of this section is punctuated by three evenly spaced threeover-three double-hung sash with paneled wood shutters. A pedimented dormer containing a two-over-four double-hung sash is a recessed arched opening is centered on the roof. An additional shed dormer with vertical cladding and an oval leaded glass window is located to the south of the dormer.
The porte cochere leads to a courtyard where the west and north façades of the north half of the house are visible. The north garage section is mostly stucco-clad on the rear façade with some wide clapboards and a vent in the gable end. A wide shed dormer with a pair of multi-pane sash punctuates with roof above the garage. Two two-car garages with paneled roll-up doors are located below. The porte cochere section to the south is also clad in stucco on the rear façade. The second story contains an iron balconette with decorative scrolled brackets below. It is accessed by a pair of narrow French doors. The doors are flanked by recessed two-over-two double-hung sash with paneled shutters. The first story contains the porte cochere with a pair of three-over-three double-hung sash to the north. A door with six glazed panes and lower wood panel is located on the north façade of this section.
The north façade of the main house faces the courtyard where its cross-gable roof form is visible. The walls are clad in stucco with a circular vent in the gable end. The second story slightly overhangs the first, with three three-over-three double-hung windows with shutters toward the west end. First story fenestration consists of another three-over-three double-hung sash window with shutters adjacent to the porte cochere, and three narrower two-over-two double-hung sash in a projecting bay to the west. Further west of this section is the onestory servants’ quarters addition made in 1986. Capped by a side-facing gable roof, the wing has a projecting gabled porch supported by flanking columns with an enclosed central entrance of double wood doors. This entrance is flanked by two glazed doors with lower wood panels. A pair of two-over-two double-hung sash windows with shutters is located to the east of the porch. A low brick wall obscures an additional French door on the north façade of the addition. The west side of the servants’ quarters has clapboards in the gable end punctuated with a circular vent. Three two-over-four double-hung sash with shutters are centered on the façade below. The north façade has a small, enclosed patio with a pair of two-over-four double-hung sash to the west and a single three-over-three double-hung sash to the east. An entrance consisting of a wood door with a glazed upper panel is located to the east of the window.
The rear (west) façade has been extensively altered. The area adjacent to the addition has a large multi-pane picture window on the first story and a second story patio with French doors and three large multi-pane windows. The central portion of the façade features a secondstory balcony with an iron balustrade accessed by seven pairs of French doors spanning the façade. The first story has three arched openings beneath the balcony with a pair of French doors on the south end and another at a reentrant angle on the north façade. The south end of the west façade has brick veneer like the front with a large bay window on the first story. (continued on page 4)
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
P3a. Description (continued from page 3)
The cornice has dentil molding details below the second story which features three two-over-four double-hung sash windows with individual shutters. The gable end has wood clapboard details and a triangular open vent. The south façade has a front-facing gable with corner returns and a triangular vent in the gable end. The second story has a group of four tall two-over-four double-hung sash with lower wood panels. Each window has narrow decorative wood shutters. The first story features a rounded projecting bay window with flanking pilasters.
The one-story outbuilding is capped by a side gable roof with a cupola and wood balustrade along the east façade of the roof. Open, flatroof porches supported by columns are located on the north and south façades. The east façade facing the house has four French doors accessed by a small brick patio with a low step. The walls are clad in wide wood clapboards with brick veneer along the lower third.
Additional two-over-four double-hung sash windows are located on the north and south façades. The property also features a swimming pool, koi pond, and tennis courts with a pergola structure.
The interior of the property was not accessible at the time of the site visit. *B10. Significance (continued from page 2)
Carleton Burgess was a local builder who had designed several homes in the area including the two across the street at 1000 and 1002 North Roxbury Drive. Although his name was well-known in Beverly Hills at that time, not much is known about his life. Born in Wisconsin in 1900, his father was vice-president of a knitting factory prior to working at a glove manufacturing company (U.S. Census Bureau 1910, 1920). Burgess moved to Los Angeles before 1922 when he married Ivo C. Copeland (California Department of Public Health 2017). The couple lived on Harvard Boulevard prior to building their home at 234 South Peck Drive in 1929 (California State Library 2017). Burgess owned and developed several other properties in 1929 including 250 South Peck Drive, 519 Alta Drive, and 264 South Rodeo Drive (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Most of these building permits list Burgess as the owner and the contractor, but a few also have an architect. His own home at 254 South Peck Drive was designed by Sydney T. Rogers and the others by G. McAlister and Howard Wells (City of Beverly Hills 2021). By the time of the 1930 census, he was living in the home on South Peck Drive with his wife and two children. He listed his occupation as real estate broker and answered “no” to the question of whether he attended school (U.S. Census Bureau 1930). McAlister was also the architect for the home he built at 622 Arden Drive in 1930 (City of Beverly Hills 2021). As Burgess continued to develop properties into the 1930s, he hired fewer architects and designed the homes himself. These include: 904 Whittier Drive (1932), his own house at 1724 Chevy Chase Drive (1935), 720 Maple Drive (1935), 1000 Roxbury Drive (1935), 917 Whittier Drive (1936), 907 Whittier Drive (1936), 1218 Coldwater Canyon (1937), 915 Whittier Drive (1937), and the home for Jack Benny at 1002 Roxbury Drive (1937).
Most of these homes were in the same area of Beverly Hills, but he occasionally had projects outside of the neighborhood. In 1938 he built a home in Van Nuys at 6915 Cedros and that same year worked with architect John S. Butler to build 235 Ladera Drive in Holmby Hills (City of Los Angeles 2021).
Carleton Burgess and his wife were regularly mentioned in the society pages as they hosted and attended dinner parties and participated in the “Nine O’Clock Players,” a charity acting troupe through the Assistance League (Los Angeles Times 1937). His active social life led to further commissions as celebrities such as Lucille Ball and George Burns and Gracie Allen moved into his homes and requested additional work. At the time of the 1940 census, the family was living at the house on Chevy Chase Drive and Burgess listed his occupation as building contractor (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). At this point he also stated that he had completed more than five years of college. His obituary noted that he had attended Stanford University and Amherst College, but limited research could not confirm this (Los Angeles Times 1994). Burgess built two more houses for his family in 1941: a beach house at 1206 West Bay Street in Newport Beach and a ranch house at 10957 Bellagio Road. In 1943, their daughter was engaged, and Burgess served in the Army Corps of Engineers in Oregon and later in Stockton (Los Angeles Times 1943a, 1943b). At some point prior to 1945, Burgess and Ivo Copeland were divorced, and he married a woman named Mary Katherine who filed for divorce three years later (Los Angeles Times 1948). He built another home at 414 Cascada Way in 1950, and married Barbara Ann Evans in 1952 (City of Los Angeles 2021; Los Angeles Times 1994). He died in 1994 at the age of 93.
In 1941, Carleton Burgess was at the height of his career. The summer before he planned the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, he completed a one-room addition for Jack Benny at the house across the street (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Mildred Naylor would have known about the houses in the area that Burgess had designed and chose her builder accordingly. Although he sometimes designed homes in the Mediterranean or Monterrey styles, Colonial Revival, particularly with Georgian influences, was clearly his most common style. Both 1000 and 1002 North Roxbury Drive have elements of the Colonial Revival. (continued on page 5)
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued from page 4)
Although it is currently the color of natural brick, Jack Benny’s home at 1002 North Roxbury Drive was originally white with features such as the bay windows, French doors with balconettes, and arched windows like the home at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. Mildred Naylor did not own the home for long, but during that time her son Robert Naylor met Gloria Dale Findlay at a party held at the house in 1942. They married the following year, but then Robert was killed in Okinawa during WWII. The ensuing battle between Robert’s mother and wife over the trust fund Robert was due to inherit from his father was well-covered in the local newspapers. As part of the suit Gloria Naylor claimed Mildred had attempted to have their marriage annulled soon after the couple were wed in Arizona (Hollywood Citizen-News 1947).
By the time Mildred Naylor remarried in 1944, the house had new occupants. Alfred A. Santell was born in San Francisco in 1895. He began working as a scriptwriter in 1914 and eventually went on to work for Columbia Pictures, RKO, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount (The Californian 1981). He directed 43 movies including Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1932) and Winterset (1938) starring Burgess Meredith (Internet Movie Database 2021). In 1934 he married actress Jane Keithley who had starred in a movie directed by Santell, The Sea Wolf, in 1930 (Arizona Republic 1932). In 1942, Santell’s wife attempted to divorce him claiming cruelty, but the couple reconciled the following year (Los Angeles Evening Citizen News 1943). The couple had four children under nine years of age and were living in the house when Jane Santell died in 1944 after a seven-week illness (Los Angeles Times 1944).
The purchase of the home by the next owner also had its share of controversy. Swimsuit designer Frederick Cole used corporate funds to buy the home because its pool made a good backdrop for fashion shows, but the board of directors at Cole of California disagreed with this reasoning (Daily News 1948). Frederick Cole was born in Los Angeles in 1901. He worked as a silent film actor during the 1920s and started a ladies underwear company in 1925. During the war, the company made parachutes and later turned their attention to swimwear (Pasadena Independent 1964). Cole knew that attaching the brand with Hollywood glamour would help the company, and in 1950 signed swimming film star Esther Williams to promote the line (Encyclopedia of Fashion 2021). The house, which the Cole family occupied from 1946 to 1954, probably did help the brand in the way Cole envisioned. It was the site of fashion shows and photo shoots and was also featured in a whiskey advertisement. Frederick Cole’s daughter Anne lived in the home and eventually created her own line of swimwear known for its feminine traditional designs (Encyclopedia of Fashion 2021).
In 1953, sale ads for the “sparkling Georgian Colonial” appeared in the Los Angeles Times, but it is not clear if it was sold at this time (Los Angeles Times 1953). Voter registration records indicated Johan Peder Rinde lived in the home from 1954 to 1956 (California State Library 2017). Born in Norway, Rinde became a U.S. citizen and entered the oil business in California. He discovered oil in the Bakersfield area in 1953 (Los Angeles Times 1967). A 1963 article about a party for the release of a book by actress Olivia de Havilland notes that the hosts of the party were Mr. and Mrs. Hall Bartlett at their home at the Roxbury address (Los Angeles Evening Citizen News 1963).
Hall Bartlett was a writer, producer, and director of experimental films dealing with social issues (Internet Movie Database 2021). It does not appear the Bartletts lived in the home for very long and by 1964 building permits indicate there was a new owner.
Joseph Mitchell was born in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1922 and moved to Los Angeles with his family as a child. He studied at the University of California Los Angeles before dropping out to serve in the Army during WWII. After the war, he joined the company his father founded in 1940 selling low-cost disability insurance. The Mitchells built the company into Beneficial Standard Corporation, a financial services holding company active in life and casualty insurance and real estate and mortgage loans (Charlotte Observer 2004). The Mitchell family lived in the home for nearly 20 years and made some changes during their time there. In 1964 they added a room and made several interior alterations (City of Beverly Hills 2021). Although Mitchell attempted to sell the house in 1965, the family stayed and there are no other listings until 1984 (Los Angeles Times 1965, 1984).
The next owner, Allen David Kohl, began to make alterations to the home in 1986 (City of Beverly Hills 2021). He was born in Wisconsin in 1936 to Maxwell and Mary Kohl (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). Max Kohl started opening traditional grocery stores in 1927 before opening his first supermarket in 1946 (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 2002). He went on to open his first department store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, in 1962. By 1970 the company had 48 supermarkets and five department stores in the Milwaukee area. Max’s son Sidney became board chairman in 1970 with his son Herbert elected president and Allen as vice-president (Journal Times 1970). A group of investors purchased the company in 1986, and the Kohl’s stores are now operating in all states except for Hawaii. The Kohls made changes to the site including the demolition of the old swimming pool and the addition of a new pool and tennis courts. They also added servants’ quarters, remodeled the second story, and repaired chimneys damaged in the earthquake (City of Beverly Hills 2021).
The following owner, social networking pioneer David Bohnett, replaced the wood shingle roof with the current slate and remodeled the rear and side façades of the home in 2006 (City of Beverly Hills 2021). (continued on page 6)
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued from page 5)
Application of City Landmark Criteria
A. A Landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements.
1. It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance; Building permits establish that the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was completed in 1942 and therefore is at least 45 years of age and satisfies this requirement.
2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
The house was built in the Colonial Revival style, with some Georgian elements. This style was popular throughout Los Angeles and particularly Beverly Hills in the 1930s and 1940s as the City’s residential neighborhoods were developed.
Stylistically, the house demonstrates many of the character-defining features of the Colonial Revival style (McAlester 2018). These include:
• Symmetrical façade
• Brick exterior
• Gabled roof with corner returns
• Divided light double-hung sash windows
• Pedimented dormers
• Attached pilasters, fanlights and bay windows
As it embodies many of the distinctive characteristics of the Colonial Revival style and has high aesthetic value, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive satisfies this requirement.
3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; Although the significant alterations have been made at the rear of the house, the primary façade has not been substantially altered since its initial construction in 1942.
Location The house has not been moved and retains integrity of location.
Design The essential elements of the form, structure, and style of the home including fenestration patterns and overall plan have not been altered and the house retains integrity of design.
Setting The physical surroundings including the setback, large lawn and relationship to the street have not been significantly altered. Based on aerial photos, the driveway may have been added after initial construction, but did not have a large impact of the integrity of setting overall.
Materials The house retains most of its original materials such as brick, wood frame windows, and clapboard details.
The roof has been changed from wood shingles to slate, but overall, the property retains fair integrity of materials.
Workmanship Evidence of workmanship in details such as the dentil molding, pedimented dormers, and corner returns is still evident and the property retains integrity of workmanship.
Feeling The property retains the aesthetic of the Colonial Revival style and the character-defining features that convey its historic character. Therefore, it retains integrity of feeling.
Association The house continues to reflect the Colonial Revival style and therefore retains integrity of association.
Overall, the house retains all seven aspects of integrity and therefore retains substantial integrity from its period of significance and satisfies this requirement.
(continued on page 7)
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued from page 6)
4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
Because of its historic architectural character as the work of a master builder and its contribution to the City’s architectural heritage, the property is considered to have historic value. Therefore, the property satisfies this requirement.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
1. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; The property is not listed on the NRHP and does not meet this requirement.
2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
According to the definitions in the Ordinance, a master architect is “an architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual genius influenced his or her age.” Additionally, a List of Local Master Architects was compiled and adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission in 2012. Although builder Carleton Burgess was not on this initial list, his name was added by the Commission and included on the amended list in 2015. However, the ordinance further states that it must be an “exceptional work” by the architect and an exceptional work is defined as:
“A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following: a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum..”
Because Carleton Burgess was a builder and not a trained architect, his houses will rarely be able to meet this requirement as they were not recognized by members of the architectural community. The Avery Index, individual indexes of Architectural Record and Architectural Digest, as well as popular publications such as House Beautiful, Sunset, and Better Homes and Gardens were searched to confirm that no publication featured this house. Even the home section of the Los Angeles Times did not include documentation of any of Burgess home with the exception of the interior of the house at Newport Beach (Los Angeles Times 1942). His name did not appear in any scholarly work, and he won no awards throughout his career.
Therefore, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance, and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person’s endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous; Some significant people such as director Alfred Santell, swimwear designer Frederick Cole, and Kohl’s department store vice-president Allen Kohl are associated with the house, but not with a momentous event. Furthermore, the wording in the Ordinance stipulates the house must be an “exceptional work” (defined above) and as discussed in B2 above, the house does not meet the definition of an “exceptional work.” Therefore, the house does not meet this requirement.
4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence; No one of great local prominence was identified. Additionally, the wording in the Ordinance stipulates that it must be “an exceptional property,” and therefore for the reasons outlined above, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
*B10. Significance (continued from page 7)
5. It is an iconic property;
According to the Ordinance, an iconic property is: “A property that has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Beverly Hills and forms part of the city’s identity to the world at large.” As it is not a well-known property to visitors or residents, the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
The owner is not seeking landmark designation, therefore the house at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet this requirement.
DPR 523A & B (1/95) *Required Information
Recorded by: Laura Taylor Kung Date: July 2021
Continuation Update
Image 1. Detail of entrance on east façade looking west.
Image 2. Detail of windows on east façade looking southwest.
Image 3. North and west façades looking southeast. Image 4. West façade looking east Image 5. South façade looking northeast. Image 6. East façade of outbuilding looking east .
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PHOTOGRAPH SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
June 10, 2022
Benjamin J. Hanelin
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Addendum to the Historic Resource Assessment Report for 1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California
ASM Affiliates (ASM) completed a Historic Resources Assessment Report (HRAR) for 1001 North Roxbury Drive in July of 2021. Many hours of research were spent searching for any information about its builder, Carlton Burgess, and particularly this house, to determine whether it could meet the strict definition of “exceptional” outlined in the City of Beverly Hills Landmark Criteria (Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 3 Article 3212 (BHMC 10-3-3202). An exceptional work is defined as:
“A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following:
a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum..”
Because Carleton Burgess was a builder and not a trained architect, his houses would be unlikely to ever meet the requirements of this definition, as they were not recognized by members of the architectural community. The Avery Index, individual indexes of Architectural Record and Architectural Digest, as well as popular publications such as House Beautiful, Sunset, and Better Homes and Gardens were searched to confirm that no publication, scholarly or popular, featured this house. Even the home section of the Los Angeles Times did not include documentation of any Burgess home with the exception of the interior of the house at Newport Beach (Los Angeles Times 1942). His name did not appear in any scholarly work, and he won no awards throughout his career.
Due to time and space constraints in the original report, ASM did not list publications found through our extensive research if they did not meet the criteria specified in the definition. ASM located one article from Luxe Interiors and Design magazine which focused on the remodeling and interior design of the home. This article neglected to mention Burgess’s name at all, instead calling it “Paul Williams-style” and listing the architect as Mark Rios, the architect for the remodel. This in no way supports the home as an exceptional work by Carlton Burgess. Additionally, the article was not written by an “expert in the architectural field.” Addendum to 1001 North Roxbury HRAR
June 10, 2022
ASM located a second article that discussed 1001 North Roxbury Drive in a Russian-language edition of Architectural Digest. Although Architectural Digest could could have potentially been authroed by an expert, the article from 2014 was again entirely about the interior and its conversion to a 1960s style design. The article does not include any details about the house itself, nor its builder. It in no way meets the criteria written by the City to specify what meets their definition of “exceptional.” As these recent articles focused on the interior design and neither mentioned Carlton Burgess or the architectural design of the original house, they were not discussed in our report and therefore not cited in our references as we only included sources referenced within the text.
George J. Mihlsten
Direct Dial: (213) 891-8189
[email protected]
LATHAM&WATKI N SLLP
May 6, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Lili Bosse
Vice Mayor Julian Gold M.D.
Beverly Hills City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury; May IO City Council Agenda
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1 .213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM/ AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Moscow
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Dusseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Shanghai
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
Milan
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers:
Attached is a copy of a letter we recently sent to the City Attorney regarding certain legal issues related to the application for a Certificate of Ineligibility for the house at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive.
As our letter details, the City Council adopted strict timelines for the staff to act on a Certificate of Ineligibility application in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Code mandated timelines were not met here. Therefore, the house was deemed to be ineligible as a matter oflaw and exempt from the City's ordinance. As such, the matter was not available for the Council to call this matter up for any review and there is no need or reason for the Council to set a hearing to review the Director's determination. With all due respect, there is nothing for the Council to review.
Also attached is a letter from Mark Rios, the architect for the last two major remodels of the house, dating back to the early 2000 period. As Mark points out, the Luxe piece that has been discussed had nothing to do with anything other than the interior/decorative work of the house. But more importantly Mark concludes, "I absolutely support the designation and protection of valuable Architectural historical assets within the City of Beverly Hills, but 1001 Roxbury is not one of them." Thank you for your attention to this matter.
orge J. Mihlsten
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
May 6, 2022
Page2
LATHAM & w AT KI N s LLP
Enclosure
cc: City Manager, George Chavez
City Attorney, Larry Wiener, Esq.
Mr. Ryan Gohlich, Director of Community Development
US-DOCS\131746726.2
George J. Mihlsten
Direct Dial: (213) 891-8196
[email protected]
US-DOCS\131466341
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Moscow
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Shanghai
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
Milan
April 26, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Laurence Wiener, Esq.
City Attorney, City of Beverly Hills
350 S. Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Email: [email protected]
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury Drive; Certificate of Ineligibility As you are aware, the owner of 1001 N. Roxbury Drive, Groverbury, LLC, recently retained Latham & Watkins to review the City’s actions surrounding Groverbury’s application for a Certificate of Ineligibility under Municipal Code Section 10-3-3221. Based on our review of the City’s files and the City’s Code, the property was deemed ineligible and, therefore, exempt from the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance by operation of law on or before January 14, 2022. The City Council has no jurisdiction to review the this exemption. The exemption is in effect and is effective for seven years, as mandated by the Code.
The Property Was Deemed Ineligible As a Matter of Law. Groverbury applied for a Certificate of Ineligibility on November 14, 2021. Section 10-3-3221.B requires that “within thirty (30) days after the filing of the application, the director shall review the application materials and determine whether the application is complete or whether additional information is required. If the application is deemed incomplete, the director shall promptly inform the applicant in writing of the missing information.” The Planning Director did not inform the applicant within 30 days, or ever, that additional information was required or that the application was incomplete. Therefore, the application was complete on or before December 14, 2021.
The next step in the City’s process is a required “preliminary evaluation” by the Director.
Specifically, the Code requires, “within thirty (30) days after the application is deemed complete, the Director shall prepare and serve on the property owner by first class, prepaid mail a written preliminary evaluation stating whether or not the director finds the subject property to be an eligible property.” Here, the Code required that the Director serve a written preliminary evaluation on the property owner by first class, prepaid mail no later than January 14, 2022 “stating whether or not the director finds the subject property to be an eligible property”. This was not done. The Director did not provide a preliminary evaluation in accordance with the Code.
The Code is very specific regarding what happens if the required preliminary evaluation is not served within 30 days of the application being deemed complete—the property is exempt Laurence Wiener, Esq.
April 26, 2022
US-DOCS\131466341
from the Ordinance. “If the director fails to prepare and serve a preliminary evaluation regarding the subject property within the allotted thirty (30) days, such failure will be deemed a finding of ineligibility….” As no preliminary evaluation was served, the house at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive is exempt from the Ordinance by operation of law as of January 14, 2022 (at the latest), for a period of seven years.
Section 3-10-3221’s Importance Was Clear When Adopted. A colloquy between Mayor Bosse (then Councilwoman Bosse) and Commissioner Craig Corman at the June 16, 2015, City Council hearing on the Ordinance confirms that the failure to issue a preliminary evaluation within 30 days automatically deems the property ineligible for a period of seven years.
Specifically, after reading the relevant portion of Section 3-3-3221, Mayor Bosse asked Commissioner Craig Corman, “does that mean basically that after 30 days if the Director does not give a certificate it’s done?” Commissioner Corman immediately responded, “that’s correct.”
This was repeated. Mayor Bosse: “If the director fails to prepare the evaluation within 30 days, such a failure will be deemed a finding of ineligibility.” Commissioner Corman:
“Yes.”
In concluding her comments on the Certificate of Ineligibility’s procedures, Mayor Bosse further noted that “one of our goals was to have predictability and for people to know in a reasonable time if their house is or is not potential landmark, so that is what that deals with.”1 The Los Angeles Conservancy also identified this 30-day feature of the City’s Ordinance and objected to it. The Conservancy argued that the City should amend the draft Ordinance so “a failure to act on the application should not automatically result in such a finding” of ineligibility.
The City rejected the Conservancy’s proposed amendment and adopted the Ordinance unchanged.2
The City Council Cannot Review the Deemed Finding of Ineligibility. The City Council only has a limited right to review lower level decisions under Municipal Code Section 1- 4-201. Specifically, “the Council may order a review of any decision made by any commission, board, or official of the City, except as otherwise provided in this Code.” Because the Director’s failure to act was “deemed a finding of ineligibility” as a matter of law, there is no “decision” for the Council to “order review of.” The Council’s discussion on March 15, 2022, and its action April 12, 2022, purporting to order review of the Code’s legal exemption mandate is void and of no force and effect.
Moreover, even if the Code’s express language regarding a “deemed finding of ineligibility” were a “decision” subject to review, which it is not, the time period for the City
1 This discussion begins at approximately 2:53:45 of the video of City Council’s June 16, 2015, meeting, which is linked above.
2 See May 28, 2015 Los Angeles Conservancy Letter, at p. 6 (attached).
Laurence Wiener, Esq.
April 26, 2022
US-DOCS\131466341
Council to review the exemption had long since passed by time Councilmember Mirisch had agendized the item for discussion on March 15. At the latest, the property was deemed ineligible under the Code on January 14, 2022. Even if Section 1-4-201 were applicable, Council “review may be ordered by motion of the Council duly adopted within thirty (30) calendar days after the issuance of the decision.” (Section 1-4-201.) Thirty (30) days after January 14, 2022, was February 13, 2022. No consideration of the matter (and certainly no action) by the Council was undertaken prior to February 13, 2022. Again, as a matter of law, Council had lost the opportunity to review the matter.
For all of these reasons, the City Council’s purported actions on March 15, 2022 and April 12, 2022, are and were a nullity. The Council had no jurisdiction to review the legal (i.e., Code) determination that the house is exempt from the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance for a period of seven years from January 14, 2022 (at the latest). * * * *
Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City Council cease all further attempts to consider the deemed finding of ineligibility, which would be in violation of the Code’s express provisions and damaging to our client. We hope that the property owner can move on with its plans for the home without need for further legal action on this matter. There are numerous other issues related to the activities of the Cultural Heritage Commission and the City Council, including Brown Act violations, but it is not necessary to review those issues in detail at this time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We would appreciate the City’s confirmation that the house is exempt from the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance before May 12, 2022.
We are available to discuss this matter with you.
Very truly yours,
George J. Mihlsten
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ryan Gohlich
Benjamin Hanelin, Esq.
LOS ANGELES
CONSERVANCY
May 28, 2015 523 West Sixth Street Swte 826
Las Angeles, CA 90014
Submitted electronically 213 623 2489 OFFICE 213 623 3909 FAX Beverly Hills Planning Commission lacenservancyorg
Attention: Reina Kapadia, MCP, Associate Planner
City ofBeverly HillsCommunity Development Department
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]: Proposed Revisions to Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Ms. Kapadia:
On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, I am writing to submit comments for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, where I understand the Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance will be discussed. Our comments address the most recent draft of the ordinance and concerns we have in terms of long-termimplications. Where possible, we suggest alternative language to be considered, previous provisions to be reinstated, and some amendments to be removed.Throughout this process we have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with the staff and members of the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council’s Liaison Committee and provide comments. As the draft ordinance continues to evolve, we remain concerned as we strongly believe certain provisions potentially limit preservation opportunities and, in some instances, do not adhere to standard preservation practices applied elsewhere, in both other communities and at the state and national levels. If the current draft ordinance is adopted, the Conservancy believes it will severely limit the ability of the city and its Cultural Heritage Commission from being able to fully designate and protect historically significant properties.
Throughout this long process the Conservancy has provided written and oral comments, most recently on May 4th and 12th We continue to highlight several sections of the proposed ordinance revisions and suggest recommendations for fl
modifying the language. Given the back and forth nature of ordinance revisions to date, we are focusing on the major rather than minor aspects at this time.10-3-3202: DEFINITIONS:
Exceptional Significance:
This definition is highly unusual and does not follow standard preservation practices elsewhere. We strongly believe it arbitrarily sets the bar too high and potentially limits otherwise significant and worthy properties from being considered for local landmark designation. We strongly suggest this provision be removed.
Person of Great Local Prominence:It’s unclear what the purpose is of this definition, as it was added recently. It is very specific and prescriptive in nature, and limits local significance only to individuals who have had either streets orparks named after them [See Criteria B.4]. We strongly suggest this provision be removed.
10.3.3207: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION:
Subsection B. Appointment and Qualifications:
We suggest you retain “shall” rather than change to “should,” as it has recently been amended. It is important to require and maintain a highly qualified makeup of commission members, with an interest, experience and knowledge to ensure a professional standard.Subsection C. Term:
The previous language outlines terms for commission members. It is unclear why this is proposed forremoval and we suggest this be reinstated. 10-3-3212: LANDMARK DESIGNATION CRITERIA:
To retain the integrity of the Historic Preservation ordinance’s landmark designation criteria, the Conservancy recommends against adopting the proposed language, as currently stated. The criteria are so restrictive that they may create the unintentional effect of preventing a California Register-eligible structure in the city from attaining local landmark status.Of greatest concern will be the large number of historically significant structures throughout the city that will be denied the protection afforded by landmark designation because they are unable to meet the highly specific and subjective designation criteria.
To ensure that local landmark designation criteria better align with state and national models, we recommend the following revisions for these particular criteria.
Fi1F1 F [0 flHiO
Wi iI
— inS tJsu *‘ mu bn iril I 1 Tfl’ ‘ii dl F I Sri i)J siu 1’ I ‘T ant I W Criteria B.:
We suggest the following modifications [in red and strikethrough] to address persons of great importancewho may have occupied but not owned a property, as this qualifier is immaterial to establishing significance associated with a specific event. further it should not limit events to those only at the national level.
“It is an exceptional work that was owncd and occupied by a person of great importance for a period of time, and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person or group’s endeavors or the broad patterns of history efat the city, state or national levels. For purposes of this paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;”
Criteria B. 4:
This new criteria references a newly added definition of “Person of Great Local Importance,” which weprovided comments on above [See Definition]. This is highly subjective and limits it to only individuals whereby a public street or park in the city were named after them. This is an unusual provision that appears to be intended to severely limit consideration of a property for landmark designation under localsignificance, and will apply only in extremely rare circumstances. As stated earlier, we recommendremoving this definition and provision under Landmark Designation Criteria.10-3-3213: HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION CRITERIA:Subsection C:
The historic district designation criteria have been changed to prohibit the designation of historic districts in an area of the city zoned for single-family development, including but not limited to those areas zoned R-r. The introduction of restrictive criteria such as these would essentially curtail most, if not all, potentialhistoric districts from being designated.In many communities, local historic districts are comprised primarily ofsingle-family residentialstructures. This is a fundamental element of most, if not all, preservation ordinances. The removal does not adhere to standard preservation practices and limits residents of the city from being offered this type of preservation planning tool. The Conservancy strongly recommends that it be reinstated.
While a local historic district in a single-family residential area may not be contemplated anytime in the near future, it is important to offer and enable its application should it be warranted in the future. The ordinance already sets high thresholds before a potential district might be considered and ultimatelyestablished.further, there are other models that could be applied in Beverly Hills to ensure there is substantial buy-inand support for a district. Other cities have criteria and a designation process that set rigorous protocols H’iflflM
FF1 flLfli iF
but yet do not discourage or outright forbid the formation of local historic districts in single-family residential areas. Glendale and Burbank are good examples. Both cities require a two-step process for the formation of local historic districts. District proponents distribute petitions through the neighborhood,with the first petition asking the City to conduct a historic resource survey requiring at least twenty-five percent property owner support, and the second petition asking the City to implement the historic districtrequiring at least fifty percent property owner support.Subsection E.
This criterion stipulates that all of the contributing properties predominantly embody the distinctive characteristics of a single architectural style, type, or period. It is common for designated historic districts to feature a variety of architectural styles, though they may relate to one another through the cohesive development pattern of the neighborhood and other shared physical characteristics including similar scale, massing, and setbacks. We suggest removing the word “single.” 10-3-3215: LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROCEEDINGS:
Many of the proposed changes to this section of the historic preservation ordinance set higher thresholds aimed at making historic resource designation more difficult to achieve. These changes would compromise the City’s ability to designate many architecturally and culturally significant structures.Subsection A.i:
When the application is by owners of contributing properties for designation of a historic district, it shallinclude a petition in support of the application signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of the property owners of legal lots within the proposed district, and shall also include a current list of names and legalmailing addresses of all property owners in the proposed district.
The Conservancy suggests that a demonstration of property owner support be part of the application review process and not tied to the application submission. Typically, a demonstration of property ownersupport for a proposed historic district is not required as part of the application process, but is insteadsubmitted during the approval process, which allows applicants time to build support through variousmethods of outreach while the application is being considered for its architectural and cultural merits.Subsection A.2.a:
This “eligibility requirement” limits the possible structures that can be initiated for landmark designation by the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council to those that appear in the Inventory, were designedby a person identified on the master architect list, or were owned or occupied by a person of either great importance or great local prominence.The Conservancy suggests that this language not be adopted, as it unnecessarily limits the actions of the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council in initiating a landmark nomination. Such initiations HN nonnrni flHO
typically take place when the City feels that a particularly significant property might be threatened, and its ability to protect its architectural or cultural heritage should not be limited in this way.
Subsection B:
We suggest reinstating the following statement as it establishes a standard of excellence and scope that is appropriate to ensure a professional Historic Assessment Report, including the following:
“This historic assessment report shall be comprehensive in nature, and shall include not only the requisite findings but also all known facts and circumstances that either support or possiblyrefute those findings.” Subsection G:
This subsection requires the vote of four members of the City Council, rather than a simple majority (three), for the approval of landmark designations or historic districts for which there is owner opposition, though in cases when only three Councilmembers are able to vote because of a conflict of interest, three votes are sufficient.
The Conservancy recommends that a simple majority be the requirement for the City Council to vote on landmark and historic district designations. Selling the threshold at four votes is unnecessarily high and will undoubtedly have the effect of limiting the number of successful designations. 10-3-3220: CERTIFICATE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP:Subsection A has been amended to remove “a qualified historic preservation” condition from the list of consultants. It is important to establish and maintain a high standard of professionalism and expertise, especially when relying on consultant reports as part of consideration regarding granting certificates ofeconomic hardship. We suggest reinstating this language.10-3-3221: CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY:
The proposed process for applying for a Certificate of Ineligibility is currently limited to the discretion of the Director of the Community Development Department. The Conservancy suggests that any applications for a Certificate of Ineligibility be based on a qualified historic preservation consultant’s analysis and applicability to Landmark Designation Criteria. We strongly suggest the insertion of the following language [in red]; otherwise this is an entirely subjective process that has the potential to be abused and limit consideration of qualified and eligible historic properties:
Subsection A, Applications:
“Request for a certificate of ineligibility shall be made by filing a written application with the department of community development. The application shall be completed on a form provided by the department, and shall include all required information, including a written preliminary riir
evaluation, based on a qualified historic preservation consultant’s analysis and applicability to Landmark Designation Criteria.”
Subsection B, Administrative Procedure:
As currently proposed, the ordinance language states “if the director fails to prepare and serve a preliminary evaluation regarding the subject property within the allotted thirty (30) days, such failure will be deemed a finding of ineligibility, and the director shall issue the requested certificate of ineligibility without further delay.”
Because a finding of ineligibility will remain valid for a period ofseven years for a particular property, a failure to act on the application should not automatically result in such a finding. Rather, we recommendthat the applicant be required to resubmit if the allotted timeftame for a decision is not sufficient.
About the Los Angeles Conservancy:
The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United States, with over 6,500 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of Los Angeles County through advocacy and education.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or afinelaconservancy.org should you have any questions and if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Adrian Scott Fine
Director of Advocacy
cc: Beverly Hills Heritage
Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission
iflHifl /
Design is never
without story
Mr. Ryan Gohlich
Director, Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 902210
Sent via email to: [email protected]
May 2, 2022
Dear Ryan,
I'm writing to address the potential historic status of 1001 Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, which I un·derstand is currently being considered.
I've had a long history with the property. I had the unique opportunity to partner with two separate owners, David Bohnett and subsequently Lisa and Josh Greer, for full remodel and revisioning projects.
The piece from LUXE magazine was a publication of my work on this property.
I hope you know from our past work in Beverly Hills, that I am an avid supporter of Architectural Historic Preservation. I can fondly list the historic buildings we've helped to preserve and restore within the city, and we continue to work to protect and add to the city's important architectural resources. I support and applaud everyone in Beverly Hills who passionately works to protect and maintain this irreplaceable historic resource.
Our first project at 1001 Roxbury was for David Bohnett in 2004 when he purchased the house. The house had been subject to multiple remodels, additions, and modifications over the years, and it did not resemble' its current form. At that time, my office did our own research in an ?ttempt to find · precedent and guidelines to "clean it up,"' but fo·und nothing significant or helpful; we realized it was a typical LA·house which had evolved over time, based on its owners, without any original architectural position or p~digr'e~. We worked at that time to edit, modify, change, delete, and clean up the interior and exterior of the house to give it a sense·of completeness, balance, and integrity, which never had previously existed. Our work included altering building mass, doors, window, roof changes, removing prior additions and adding new elements to give the house a sense of timeless style. I am humbled that it seems we achieved our intent with these recent changes. We accomplished our goal of giving it dignity where it may not have originally existed.
Significant effort also went into the site during that initial remodel, the result of which also contributes to the misconception of this being a historic property. The prominent, highly visible front and side landscape was highly edited and simplified to create its allusion of stately grandeur and elegance. Years of complicated, fussy planting beds, flowers, hedges, small fences, misaligned trees, etc. were removed, aligned, and reconsidered to create the simplicity which currently gives 1001 Roxbury a strong sense of presence. Again, these landscape designs were a recent design intervention to create a timeless landscape that established a visual story for the house.
The interiors for David Bohnett were quite elaborate and pushed the idea of Hollywood Regency, much beyond the overall classic appearance of the exterior. At that time, David was amassing a large collection of famous regency and modernist furniture, and the setting we curated for this collection was specific and unique, substantially different from the conceptions of the exterior architectural forms. The LUXE piece was a documentation and celebration of this interior/decorative work and David's unique furniture collection, not a commentary or validation of any part of the architecture. Each room was uniquely designed for his collection, and the photographs in the publication told this story.
The design was very Hollywood; a wonderful, invented, and stylish lifestyle. The piece has nothing to do with any historic perspective of the house.
RIOS.com
323. 785.1800
3101 W. Exposition Place
Los Angeles, CA 90018 RIOS
Design is never
without story
Our second project at 1001 Roxbury was for Lisa and Josh Greer in 2011. They loved the site, location, and overall layout of the house. The Greers had a young family, which had quite different programmatic needs, as well as a different sense of style and taste. They wanted a wonderful, comfortable home for their family, so we removed all the previously styled rooms and interiors, which were seen in the LUXE publication, to create a calm, warm, welcoming, elegant set of interior rooms.
The Greers entertained and sponsored many non-profit events, so the house was finished and furnished in ways to support these large gatherings, while still making a great family home. Most of the prior remodel of the exterior was retained, however the interior spaces were completely reconceived for this new client and their family.
I'm very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with two amazing clients to make 1001 Roxbury their unique home. Both were exciting commissions, of which I am very proud. But I reinforce the fluidity of residential design and the importance of each owner making their home their own. This house was never a result of an overall architectural idea and consistent design, but it has become a perfect example of the evolutionary nature of a house, especially in the environment of Beverly Hills/Los Angeles, much like a movie set that sets that tone for a production.
I'd like to make a few more comments to consider in this conversation. I fully support the city's urban design guidelines for this neighborhood, which I believe are the key factors which give this house, other homes, and the overall neighborhood its sense of value and character. Open front yards, the position of the house on the street, the avoidance of high hedges, the limited heights of fences, the limited amount of hardscape all SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to the character of Beverly Hills. These planning ideas should be celebrated and protected, because I believe it's what give the neighborhood its "historic significance," not the individual houses. If a specific house remains, gets remod.efed or replaced, it doesn't matter to be honest. What's important is the character of the neighborh-ood which creates the important feel and personality of this part of Beverly Hills. I applaud the Beverly Hills Architectural Review board for all their time and effort to protect and improve your community,: Their hard work, and your work from the Planning/Development departments is evident- a_nd it pays off.
In conclusion, I absolutely support the designation and protection of valuable Architectural historical assets within the City of Beverly Hills, but 1001 Roxbury is not one of them.
Its evolution over time is like many houses in the neighborhood - a reflection of its owners, their desires and dreams to make it their unique, curated home. I'm not worried about the potential replacement over time of this or many houses in the neighborhood, which have conventionally evolved as nonspecific architectural homes, as I believe the current neighborhood and urban guidelines will always protect this unique, important, and characteristically "Beverly Hills" neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mark Rios
FAIA, FASLA
Creative Director
323-785-1812
[email protected]
RIOS.com
323. 785.1800
3101 W. Exposition Place
Los Angeles, CA 90018 RIOS
Applicant’s Response to Validity of Publications
Attachment 10
April 5, 2022
Murray D. Fischer, Esq.
Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer
A Professional Corporation
433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 970
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Subject: Historical Resource Assessment Research Methodology for 1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills and Review of Additional Articles
Dear Mr. Murray Fischer, Esquire,
In October 2021, ESA prepared a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) for the single-family residence at 1001 North Roxbury Drive (subject property), Beverly Hills, California (City). The evaluation found that the 1942 Regency Revival style residence built by contractor, real estate developer, and builder Carleton Lyle Burgess is ineligible as a City of Beverly Hills Landmark. The report found that the subject property was not the subject of a substantive written or photographic discussion in any major architectural periodicals nor was it discussed in a monograph or other publication.
ESA’s report was peer reviewed by the City of Beverly Hills historic consultant Jan Ostashay, who also found the home ineligible as a Beverly Hills Landmark. While the peer review found that “OAC ultimately concurs with the report’s conclusion that the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not satisfy the required mandates of the City of Beverly Hills’ Landmark Designation Criteria (BHMC 10-3-3212),” OAC's evaluation of the residence under Beverly Hills Criteria A and B differed from ESA's. ESA's report and the peer review were circulated to the Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission before the Director of Community Development made the final determination to issue the Certificate of Eligibility for the property. This determination was based on the finding that the property does not “satisfy the definition of an ‘exceptional work’ by the Master Architect…as it was not the subject of any publications or architectural awards discussing or honoring the property for its design and merit.”1
The decision to grant a Certificate of Ineligibility was called up for review by a Beverly Hills City Councilmember at a City Council meeting in March 2022. At this meeting, a Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) commissioner also presented the City Council with two magazine articles written about the property. The CHC commissioner asserted that the discovery of these articles show that the property might qualify as an exceptional work as defined by the City's preservation ordinance. 2 Two specific articles that feature the subject
property were cited:
1. "A Transitional Beverly Hills Residence with an Old Hollywood Feel," Luxe Interiors + Design, June 2, 2015.
1 Samuel Braslow, "City Council Resumes In-Person Meetings," Beverly Hills Courier, March 17, 2022, https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/03/17/city-council-resumes-in-person-meetings/. 2 Ibid.
March 30, 2022
2. An article in Russian published in an international edition of Architectural Digest from an unspecified date.3
The City’s preservation ordinance defines an “exceptional work” as follows:
A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following: a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum.4
This memorandum provides a further information about ESA’s research methodology and sources used when conducting the original HRA for 1001 North Roxbury Drive and an assessment of the two identified articles listed above in conjunction with the City’s definition of an exceptional property as defined in its preservation ordinance.
Professional Qualifications
ESA’s October 2021 HRA and this memorandum were prepared by a team of ESA’s architectural historians— including Margarita Jerabek-Bray, Ph.D., Director of Historical Resources; Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S., Senior Architectural Historian; and Claire Cancilla, M.S., Architectural Historian—all of whom meet and exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history. Professional qualifications are provided in Attachment A.
HRA Research Methodology
ESA conducted research to ascertain whether the subject property has been substantively discussed or photographed in a recognized architectural periodical or other publication, or if the property was discussed in the context of the work of builder Carleton Lyle Burgess.
Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals at Columbia University To conduct this research, ESA utilized standard research techniques and repositories for architectural history, including searches of the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals at Columbia University. The Avery Index, updated weekly, is the industry standard for identifying articles about architects and architecture published in architectural monographs, periodicals, and other publications. It offers a “comprehensive listing of journal articles published worldwide on architecture and design, archaeology, city planning, interior design, landscape 3 Ibid.
4 Ord. 15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-18154.
March 30, 2022
architecture, and historic preservation.”5 The Avery Index includes articles from the 1930s to the present, with some coverage going back as far as the 1740s.
To conduct research on 1001 North Roxbury Drive, ESA utilized various search terms in the Avery Index. First, ESA searched for the home’s address and iterations thereof.6 These searches included the home’s address; its address in combination with all configurations Carleton Lyle Burgess’ name; only searching “Roxbury Drive” or “Roxbury”; the full address with Beverly Hills; only Roxbury and Beverly Hills; Roxbury and Carleton Burgess; Beverly Hills and Carleton Lyle Burgess; and other combinations with these various search terms.
City of Beverly Hills Historic Consultant Jan Ostashay also conducted an Avery Index search to verify ESA’s findings. She stated in her peer review of ESA’s report that: “research undertaken for this peer review, including a review of the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, has not found evidence that the property was ever the subject of a major architectural award or was substantially discussed or photographically depicted in a monograph or any other known publications.”7
While preparing this memorandum, ESA conducted an additional Avery Index search with the above discussed search terms to verify the accuracy of the initial research. This confirmed the results of ESA’s original research; no additional articles about the subject property were identified. Neither the Luxe Interiors + Design article nor any article about the subject property in international editions of Architectural Digest or any other publication appeared in these additional Avery Index search results.
Additional Research Methods
In addition to searching the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, ESA utilized additional repositories and search engines to identify any articles or publications about the subject property as part of the original HRA research effort. Search engines consulted for ESA’s report included Newspapers.com; Google and Google Books; the City of Beverly Hills Department of Planning documents8; Calisphere, which allows users to simultaneously search the online archives of hundreds of documents from many academic institutions, museums, and other repositories such as the Los Angeles Public Library and the University of Southern California; the Online Archive of California, which allows uses to search finding aids for archival collections for repositories throughout California; the City of Beverly Hills’ 1984-1985 historic resources survey and 2004 update; the Beverly Hills 5Avery Architecture and Fine Arts Library at Columbia University, "Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals," N.D., https://library.columbia.edu/libraries/avery/avery-index.html. 6 These include spelling out “North” or abbreviating as “N”; spelling out “Drive” and abbreviating to “Dr”; and only searching “1001 Roxbury,” among other combinations.
7 Jan Ostashay, Ostashay & Associates, "Peer Review Assessment: Historical Resources Assessment - 1001 North Roxbury,” prepared for the City of Beverly Hills Department of Planning, January 2022, 7. 8 This was done via Google, through the following technique: “[search term]” Site: http://beverlyhills.granicus.com.
Search terms used included iterations of the home’s address, Carleton Burgess, and combinations therein. This type of search specifically searches the website entered rather than gathering general results from across the web as is the case with a typical Google search. This allowed ESA to identify published City of Beverly Hills documents that mention the subject property that may otherwise have been buried in typical Google search.
March 30, 2022
Historical Society’s website; and myriad books and online sources.9 In addition, ESA conducted site specific research on the development of the residence and surrounding area through sources such as aerial photographs and Sanborn Maps.10
ESA further conducted extensive research on Burgess’ life and career, which involved utilizing the research repositories listed above, as well as building permit research on other properties designed by Burgess; Burgess' 1919 high school yearbook; the historical directory of the American Institute of Architects; the California Architects Board; and Burgess’ census and voter registration records. None of this research identified any monographs or architectural publications covering Burgess’ career or covering 1001 North Roxbury Drive.
The sources consulted by ESA in preparation of the October 2021 HRA are industry standard and are consulted for due diligence when conducting historical architectural research and historic resource evaluations. They are reliable means of identifying significant published articles about a property.
Additional Article
While writing this memorandum, ESA also identified and analyzed an article that discusses the 900 and 1000 blocks of North Roxbury Drive. The article is entitled “The Street Where They Lived” and was written by Todd Purdum for Vanity Fair in 1999 (a copy of the article is included as Attachment B). 11 This article describes the
lives and experiences of notable occupants of the 900 and 1000 blocks of North Roxbury over time, calling out specific homes in which celebrities such as Ira Gershwin, Lucille Ball, Rosemary Clooney, and others lived.
While this article does provide information on the neighborhood at large, it does not mention 1001 North Roxbury at all, does not include images of the property, and does not substantively discuss its architecture.
Review of Luxe Interiors + Design Article
The first article identified during the March 2022 City Council meeting about the subject property is a piece published in Luxe Interiors + Design, which is not an academic journal or publication about architecture or design; it is a popular magazine primarily devoted to interior design. A copy of the article is included as Attachment C. The brief 8-paragraph article on the subject property discusses the remodel project completed by Mark Rios of Rios Clementi Hale Studios for owners David Bohnett and Tom Gregory. The article is focused on the remodel and the interior design by Rios. According to the article, Rios stated, “It was a beautifully proportioned, elegant house, but none of the details were particularly spectacular. David wanted to make it 9 Additional online sources consulted include: digitally available Beverly Hills and Los Angeles landmark nominations; The Real Deal; Time Magazine; Beverly Press; Beverly Hills Courier; Los Angeles Business Journal; City of Los Angeles Historic Context Statements (for background and architectural style information, as well as to identify any potential references to Burgess); and books such as Forgotten Modern and A Field Guide to American Houses. 10 Site-specific research also included building permits, historic City directories, historical photographs as available, and Ancestry.com records.
11 Todd Purdum, "The Street Where They Lived," Vanity Fair, April 1999, https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1999/04/roxbury199904.
March 30, 2022
unique.”12 The kitchen was modernized, baths and powder rooms rebuilt, and a large terrace added along the second-floor master bedroom.
The piece also includes comments from George Peper, president of Fort Hill Construction, the contractor who stated, “The house was visually in good condition, but that view was a bit misleading.”13 He noted that while the design changes were made, the house was also brought up to current structural standards. The article goes on to discuss the simplified landscape improvements and contemporary eclectic interior design. The last paragraph notes that the unexpected quality of the interior design is part of the home’s success, as according to Rios, “It has a quiet approach, but, as you walk inside, it surprises you. It’s like a story; as you move through, you get to know the characters, and they become a little more eccentric.”14 The article does not have a scholarly discussion about the residence’s architecture. There is no mention of the historic character or significance of the property, except that it “evokes the glamour of Old Hollywood”15 and that the classic lines of the tennis pavilion echo the traditional lines of the main house. The article does not discuss the historic architecture of the residence. This article was not published at the time of the home’s original construction, 1942; it was published in 2015. This article was not published when the residence was originally built, nor does it discuss the house as an award-winning design or innovative project from that time. The topic of this article is a recent interior design by Rios and therefore it does not support eligibility under the City’s ordinance as an “exceptional work.”
Further, the article contains factual errors about the home’s history, including a photograph caption that incorrectly states that the home is a “1930s Paul Williams-style structure.”16 The subject property was built in 1942. The article makes no mention of the home’s actual builder, Carleton Lyle Burgess.
Article Solicitation and Lack of Authorship
Luxe Interiors + Design further solicits stories on home renovations, which may have been how the article about 1001 North Roxbury Drive was published. Individuals not affiliated with the magazine can submit a home renovation project to Luxe editors in various regions for publication. When submitting a home project to the magazine, the submission guidelines state that "the home cannot have been previously published."17 Luxe further has a submission guideline document that includes additional considerations for submitting projects to the magazine.18
12 "A Transitional Beverly Hills Residence with an Old Hollywood Feel," Luxe Interiors + Design, June 2, 2015. 13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Luxe Interiors + Design, "Editorial Submissions," N.D., https://luxesource.com/editorial-submissions/#.YjoQCufMI2w. 18 Luxe Interiors + Design, "Home Submission Guide," 2021, https://luxesource.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/LX_Home_Submission_Guide.pdf.
March 30, 2022
If the article in Luxe about the subject property was indeed the result of a submission, it would not constitute a valid source for the property to be considered an exceptional work. The article further has no attributed author, which also makes it impossible to ascertain whether the person who wrote the article is an “acknowledged expert in the field of architecture,”19 as required for an article to meet the threshold to qualify a property as an “exceptional work” in the City’s preservation ordinance.
The Luxe article confirms the 2006-2007 alterations ESA covered in the original HRA but does not provide any new information that is pertinent to the evaluation. The article is not adequate to qualify the subject property as an exceptional work as defined in the City’s preservation ordinance.
Review of Architectural Digest Article
The second article mentioned during the March 2022 City Council meeting was of an unspecified title published in Russian in an international edition of Architectural Digest at an unspecified date.20 A translation of the Architectural Digest article was provided by Ryan Gohlich of the City of Beverly Hills. The full translation with all images provided by the City is available in Attachment D. Translations in the figures referenced below are italicized in the captions for clarity.
This article discusses the same interior renovation as the Luxe article (Figure 1). It was not published when the home was first constructed, does not mention the builder, does not substantively discuss the architecture, and it is unclear if the author was an expert in the field of architecture. As the translator of the article pointed out, there are many grammatical errors and missing words and some of the captions do not align with the associated photograph (example in Figure 2 below). Some captions are used twice for different images (example in Figure 3) and there are instances in which the text is not talking about the subject property at all, even though it includes a photograph of the subject property (example in Figure 4). The translator further noted that there appears to be languages other than Russian at some points in the article, that there are grammatical errors, and that the article The additional considerations outlined include:
• The home should have a connection to the local design community, i.e., the interior designer, architect, builder or landscape architect should be based in the region
• The design should be recently completed—within the past 1-2 years • Avoid pitching projects featured on social media. Our goal is to offer readers an exclusive experience • Include a short proposal about the project: Who worked on it? What is the scope of the project? Where is it located? When, how and why was it created? If there’s a fun fact or story angle, please include that as well.
Note that while building permits indicate the renovations discussed in the article are from 2006-2007, the article about 1001 North Roxbury was published in 2015, more than 1-2 years after the renovations. It is possible that the 1-2-year guideline listed above was not in place at the time of the article’s publication, an exception was made for this project, or this 1–2-year time frame is not a hard rule for project publication. These guidelines were further published in 2021 and may have changed since the 2015 publication of the article.
19 Ord. 15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-18154. 20 Samuel Braslow, "City Council Resumes In-Person Meetings," Beverly Hills Courier, March 17, 2022, https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/03/17/city-council-resumes-in-person-meetings/.; An Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals search did not identify an English language version of this article.
March 30, 2022
cuts off abruptly (see Attachment C for full comments pertaining to the article). This article does not constitute a scholarly work and does not qualify the subject property as an exceptional work.
Figure 1. Translation: The architect Mark Rios helped the Beverly Hills homeowner go back to 1960’s.
Text by Dominica Bradbarry, Photography by Richard Powers.
March 30, 2022
Figure 2: Note from the translator: “There are many errors in the grammar here and misspelled words, but the language above translates to”: A wood-lined fireplace is the first thing that catches the eye. They did not install/stand-up a chimney.
March 30, 2022
Figure 3. Note from translator: “The text above uses words that are repeated and misspelled… and it seems that it’s the same language as the first photo with the entrance with the white façade: A wood-lined fireplace is the first thing that catches the eye. They did not install/stand-up a chimney.” March 30, 2022
Figure 4. Translation: Usually, builders use plywood for draft work. Archduke Claudt believes that this is a universal finishing material. At first he used it in the city, and now he used it in the Moscow region... (incomplete sentence/statement).
Conclusion
ESA prepared an HRA documenting the history of 1001 North Roxbury and evaluating its eligibility as a Beverly Hills Landmark. The research identified no published sources that discussed or photographed the subject property in its time, nor did it identify any monographs or periodicals discussing the home that would qualify the home as an exceptional property as defined in the City’s preservation ordinance.
This memorandum outlined ESA’s research techniques, repositories and sources utilized for the preparation of this report. These techniques are industry standard and required for adequate due diligence when evaluating a potential historic resource. ESA reviewed the Avery Index again during the preparation of this memorandum to ensure no articles were missed in the initial research; this search confirmed the accuracy of ESA’s original research. ESA also reviewed an additional article from Vanity Fair that discussed the 900 and 1000 blocks of North Roxbury Drive, but this article does not mention the subject property.
ESA further searched for two articles brought up in the Beverly Hills City Council meeting in March 2022 pertaining to the subject property. ESA located and reviewed the 2015 article covering the recent interior design and renovation of the subject property in Luxe Interiors + Design. Luxe is a popular magazine, and there is no March 30, 2022
author associated with the article. This article was not published when the residence was originally built, nor does it discuss the house as an award-winning design or innovative project from that time. The topic of this article is a recent interior design by Rios and therefore it does not support eligibility under the City’s ordinance as an “exceptional work.” ESA also reviewed the translation of the Russian Architectural Digest article which discusses the same interior remodel of the home by Mark Rios. This article is does not substantively discuss the architecture of the home, its history, or its significance. As such, neither of these articles meet the definition required by the City to qualify 1001 North Roxbury as an exceptional property.
Sincerely,
Margarita Jerabek-Bray, Ph.D.
Historic Resources Director
Attachments:
A: Professional Qualifications
B: Copy of “The Street Where They Lived” (published in Vanity Fair in 1999) C: Copy of “A Transitional Beverly Hills Residence with an Old Hollywood Feel” (published in Luxe Interior + Design in 2015)
D: Architectural Digest Translation
Attachment A
Professional Qualifications
Margarita Jerabek-Bray, Ph.D., has 32 years of professional practice in the United States with an extensive background in historic preservation, architectural history, and historical archaeology. She specializes in American Architecture, Modern and Contemporary Architecture, Urban History and Design, and Cultural Landscape, and is a regional expert on Southern California architecture. Her qualifications and experience meet and exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in History, Architectural History, and Archaeology. Margarita assists clients with strategic advice and historic preservation consultation services to support project success. Highly experienced and solution oriented, she provides historic resources management and preservation consultation services for all stages of project development, from due diligence through planning and design, to preparation of required documentation for environmental review and permitting. She provides expert historic preservation services for environmental review and, when necessary, implements mitigation requirements and preservation treatment measures.
Margarita is a highly experienced and respected authority in the evaluation, management and treatment of historic properties, and is expert in the preparation of legally defensible documentation for compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and local ordinances and planning requirements. She has managed and conducted hundreds of projects for public and private clients throughout California and the United States, and as primary investigator she has authored numerous historic resources technical reports, plan reviews, HABS/HAER/HALS reports, salvage inventories, rehabilitation plans, relocation plans, construction monitoring reports, interpretive programs, as well as curated exhibits, provided input for interpretive websites and assisted in the development of content for documentary films.
Margarita Directs ESA’s Southern California Historic Resources Practice, leading a team of historians, architectural historians, and preservation specialists who are a part of ESA’s more than 30-member Cultural Resources Group. She has conducted a broad range of planning and technical studies for development projects throughout Southern California. Her relevant on-call contracts with various agencies, policy documents, environmental compliance work, and historic preservation projects are summarized below.
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Art History,
University of California,
Los Angeles
M.A., Architectural
History, School of
Architecture, University
of Virginia
Certificate of Historic
Preservation, School of
Architecture, University
of Virginia
B.A., Art History,
Oberlin College
32 YEARS
EXPERIENCE
AWARDS
2020 Gold Nugget Merit
Award, PCBC, Best
Rehabilitation Project
2018 Merit Award,
Environmental Analysis
Document, Association
of Environmental
Professionals
2016 Preservation
Design Award,
Interpretive Exhibit,
California Preservation
Foundation
2014 Preservation
Award, Los Angeles
Conservancy
2014 Westside Prize,
Westside Urban Forum
2014 Design Award:
Westside Urban Forum
2012 Preservation
Design Award,
California Preservation
Foundation
Relevant Experience
Agency On-Call Preservation Contracts. Margarita currently manages ESA’s on‐ call preservation consulting contracts with the City of Santa Monica, City of Hermosa Beach, and serves as principal investigator for historic resources for our on-call contracts with the City of Los Angeles’s Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering, and Los Angeles Unified School District.
Policy Documents. Margarita has contributed her preservation planning expertise to several projects including Lincoln Specific Plan (Whittier), and CPA7 (Culver Studios). Her knowledge of preservation policy and law is also demonstrated in the Citywide Survey and General Plan Update completed by ESA for the City of Hermosa Beach, and the Culver City General Plan Update.
City of Santa Monica On-Call Historic Preservation Services, Santa Monica, CA.
Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian. Dr. Jerabek is the primary point of contact and contract administrator for ESA’s on-call contract for historic preservation services with the City of Santa Monica. Under her 12-year tenure, ESA’s historic division has prepared hundreds of studies including preliminary assessments, landmark assessments, structure of merit assessments, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards plan reviews and preservation recommendations, landscape assessments, character-defining features reports and CEQA impacts analyses.
Historic Resources and Preservation Consultation Service for Santa Monica City Hall, City of Santa Monica, CA. Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian. Prepared a Section 106 Effects Evaluation report and provided mitigation services pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement for Structural Seismic Upgrades, ADA Improvements, Relocation of Wood Paneling, and Adaptive Re-use of the Historic Jail under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Dr. Jerabek was the primary point of contact, provided project management and agency coordination, and served as principal architectural historian for the project. ESA prepared a HABS report for the historic jail located in the northeast wing of City Hall; conducted Plan Reviews and provided preservation recommendations for the seismic upgrades; reviewed proposed ADA improvements and provided recommendations to avoid impacts; reviewed the wood paneling relocation plans and worked with the City to select a qualified master craftsman and conducted construction monitoring for the project; reviewed the jail rehabilitation project for conversion of the two-story jail into an IT Center and offices and provided design consultation for conformance with the Standards, including in-kind replacement of the historic windows; curated, designed and oversaw installation of an interpretive exhibit in the IT Center lobby. Follow-on services for the City included Preservation Consultation and Monitoring for restoration of the entrance to City Hall, and Paint Analysis and color recommendations for repainting City Hall. Dr. Jerabek also conducted a Landscape Analysis and provided Plan Reviews for the City’s Ken Genser Square and Tongva Park projects that received a 2014 Design Award from the Westside Urban Forum.
City of Hermosa Beach On-Call Historic Preservation Services. Project Director.
ESA has performed a number of surveys, Certificate of Appropriateness, and CEQA compliance reviews for historic structures while serving as a historic preservation consultant for the City of Hermosa Beach. Projects include historic resources surveys on three of the oldest commercial buildings in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach for the City of Hermosa Beach: Bank of America Building at 90 Pier Avenue, the Hermosa Hotel at 26 Pier Avenue, Art Deco-style Community Center, and the Neoclassical Revival-style Bijou Theatre located at
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation
Foundation
Santa Monica
Conservancy
Society of Architectural
Historians, Life Member
American Institute of
Architects (AIA),
National Allied Member
Neutra Institute, Fellow
1221-1227 Hermosa Avenue. ESA prepared a comprehensive assessment of each building, and reviewed all plans for compliance under the local preservation ordinance and CEQA, which stipulate the use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as mitigation. Upon implementation of rehabilitation work on the Bijou, ESA also monitored all construction work until final completion. ESA was later commissioned to undertake a Certificate of Appropriateness and CEQA compliance review of interior tenant improvements to the Bijou Theater for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. ESA has carried out site reviews of the work to examine the scope and nature of selective demolition and new construction, provided guidance on technical preservation matters, and undertook a substantial completion review of the works. Most recently, ESA provided project review for tenant improvements, and conducting construction monitoring and oversight for restoration of ornamental plasterwork in the Bijou Building. Additionally, ESA provided paint analysis and restoration treatment recommendations for the Art Deco-style Hermosa Beach Community Center.
Hermosa Beach General Plan Update and EIR, City of Hermosa Beach, CA. Project Manager for Cultural Resources/Principal Architectural Historian. Managed ESA’s Cultural Resources scope of work and collaborated with Raimi & Associates and PMC to provide consulting services to the City of Hermosa Beach for preparation of a Comprehensive Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Update and EIR Focused on Sustainability and Low Carbon Future.
Directed city-wide reconnaissance survey to identify potentially eligible historical resources. Developed historic contexts and themes for the City’s historical resources. Reviewed and provided recommendations for revisions to the preservation ordinance. Provided input for preparation of historic preservation goals and policies for the General Plan update. Managed preparation of the cultural resources technical report, and oversaw preparation of the historic resources, archaeological and paleontological discussions and analyses for the EIR.
City of Long Beach, Environmental Consultation and HABS Documentation.
Margarita has assisted the City of Long Beach by preparing documentation for the City Hall and Library Complex HABS and associated landscape plaza; she provided historic resources support for the City’s EIR, and prepared documentation for the Atlantic Theater HABS and an Interpretive Exhibit for installation in the new North Long Beach Public Library.
City of Whittier, Preservation Consultation Services for the Public Library Rehabilitation Project. Margarita lead a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Analysis and provided design consultation for rehabilitation of the Modern-style Whittier Library. Constructed in 1958, the property is significant for its association with Mid-Century Modernism, postwar period institutional properties, and architect William Henry Harrison. ESA found that the library possesses sufficient historical significance and architectural merit to convey its significant as an individual resource under National Register Criteria A and C.
Margarita’s role on the project was to direct and manage the ESA project team, coordinate with the architect and City, provide review and internal quality assurance/quality control to the ESA team in the preparation of both the Historic Resources Assessment to evaluate the significance and integrity of the building, as well as for the plan review that was conducted to evaluate the proposed project’s conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and hearing attendance. ESA is currently completing a HABS report as baseline documentation for the rehabilitation project.
City of Burbank, Historic Preservation Consultation Services. Margarita directed preparation of ESA’s historic resources technical report and CEQA impacts analysis, and prepared the historic section of the IS/MND for the Burbank Reservoir No. 1 Replacement Project, which evaluated the eligibility of the Burbank Reservoir facility and analyzed the potential impacts of the Project for compliance with the CEQA. Margarita directed preparation of ESA’s historic resources technical report and historic resources EIR section for the Burbank Bob Hope Airport Replacement Terminal Project EIR, which evaluated the eligibility of the buildings and structures for eligibility as a potential historic district and as individual resources, and analyzed the potential impacts of the Project for compliance with the CEQA. While the Airport did not appear eligible as a historic district, ESA evaluated 11 hangars and buildings over 45 years in age as potential individual resources. The majority of the buildings and structures were found ineligible, however, Hangars 1 and 2, which are the earliest intact hangars, were recommended eligible for the National Register, California Register, and for local listing. Under contract with the City of Burbank, Margarita managed and conducted a historic resources impacts analysis and plan review for Rehabilitation of the Casting Building as a Fitness Center, by Marmol Radziner and Associates, AIA, located in the Disney Studio’s Historic District. The Project repurposed and expanded the existing 4,000 square feet Casting Building on the Studio Lot by about 8,700 square feet for an Employee Fitness Center adjacent to the historic Commissary. Margarita provided design consultation for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to rehabilitate the Casting Building as a fitness center. To reduce potential impacts, Margarita prepared a HABS report to record the Casting Building in professional large format HABS photographs and a narrative history and description of the building.
SoCal Historic Resource Surveys. Margarita has managed and conducted several large historic resources survey projects including three surveys for the Adelante‐Eastside (Boyle Heights), Wilshire Center/Koreatown, and Normandie 5 redevelopment areas that were among the earliest to utilize SurveyLA tools and methods and to employ the Multiple Property Documentation Approach, working in close collaboration with the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.
These surveys have been incorporated into the Los Angeles Citywide Survey.
Other notable accomplishments include Hermosa Beach Citywide Survey, and Santa Monica North of Wilshire Survey for which she served as Project Director.
Mills Act Applications and Architectural Conservation. Margarita has assisted applicants in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood with the preparation of Mills Act Applications. Her expertise in the preservation of Modern architecture is represented by the Landmark nomination and Mills Act Application for Victor Gruen’s Rosenstiel Residence, 1210 Coldwater Canyon Drive in Beverly Hills. Her forward-looking landmark nomination for a Mills Act application for the Post-Modern Sun Tech Townhomes in Santa Monica, illustrates her broad ranging knowledge in resources of the recent past. Her conservation and interpretation skills are represented by the award-winning Montebello Home Savings and Loan project that involved cleaning and restoration of the historic bank building and art works designed by Millard Sheets Studio, and design and installation of a 5-panel interpretive exhibit and rediscovery of a lost tapestry originally designed for the building, for which she received a California Preservation Design Award, 2016. Her in-depth and award-winning preservation work includes the RMS Queen Mary Survey of Fine and Decorative Art, the RMS Queen Mary Historic Structure Report, and the Queen Mary Conservation Management Plan (California Preservation Foundation Preservation Design Award, 2012).
Environmental Documentation and Compliance with CEQA. Margarita has prepared a full range of CEQA documentation for historic preservation projects throughout greater Los Angeles including Categorical Exemption Letters, assessments and plan reviews for Certificates of Appropriateness, Initial Studies/MNDs, Focused EIRs, and EIRs. A partial list of important environmental documents for projects in Los Angeles involving substantial historical analysis completed by Dr. Jerabek-Bray includes the LAX Specific Plan Amendment Study EIR, Academy of Motion Pictures Project EIR, The New Century Plan EIR for Westfield, Washington Square EIR, Sunset Doheny Mixed‐ Use EIR, One Santa Fe Mixed‐Use MND, Lindbrook & Gayley Mixed‐Use MND, 6230 Sunset Mixed-Use Project EIR, Hollywood Center EIR, Palladium EIR, Sunset and Crescent Heights EIR, and Yucca and Argyle EIR. In Santa Monica she contributed to the Fairmont Miramar Hotel & Bungalows Revitalization Plan EIR, St. John’s Health Center Development Agreement Addendum EIR, Santa Monica Pier Gangway Project and Phase 4 Structural Upgrade, and CEQA support for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District-Wide Facilities Plan. In Pasadena her experience includes the Glenarm Power Plant Repowering Project EIR. In Long Beach she provided expertise and support for the Art Exchange Redevelopment Project EIR support, and the Golden Shore Master Plan EIR.
Educational Facilities and University Campuses, CA. Principal Investigator/Project Manager. Dr. Jerabek-Bray has conducted numerous evaluations of school and university campuses throughout Southern California.
Under ESA’s on-call contract with the Los Angeles Unified School District, she has managed and completed over 30 task orders involving historic resources, including campus assessments, character-defining features analysis, and project reviews for compliance with CEQA. For example, Margarita managed and conducted preparation of a historic resources technical report for Jefferson High School and provided preservation design consultation for this site-specific school upgrade and modernization project under the District’s School Upgrade Program (SUP). The proposed project included the rehabilitation of existing character-defining buildings and landscapes, demolition and removal of noncontributing buildings, and construction of new facilities. Rehabilitation work included modernization and seismic upgrade to existing buildings. Because the school site is considered a historical resource under CEQA, Margarita provided design consultation for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to reduce potential project impacts to less than significant. Once project plans were developed, Margarita oversaw review of the proposed project by ESA historic staff and completed impacts analysis findings regarding potential project impacts to identified historical resources that would be affected by the project. Margarita also provided project management, oversight and contributed to the preparation of CEQA and NEPA procedural guidelines to help the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to comply with the historical resources requirements of CEQA and NEPA, and to implement practical approaches to preserving culturally significant resources whenever possible. The LAUSD’s Office of Environmental Health and Safety requested the preparation of CEQA and NEPA guidelines, in addition to design guidelines and treatment approaches, specifically in support of the School Upgrade Program, and generally to guide ongoing repair and maintenance work on these sites. The guidelines build upon the District’s ongoing efforts to identify historical resources, including the recently updated Historic Context Statement, survey of 55 campuses, creation of an ArcGIS-compatible database with current and previous survey results, and a Historic Resources Inventory. Dr. Jerabek-Bray worked with LAUSD and facilities staff to determine the scope, class, and type of projects that would impact historical resources and need to be addressed in the procedural guidelines. As a final work product, Dr. Jerabek-Bray authored a CEQA and NEPA procedural guidelines document that included the following sections: introduction, regulatory setting, environmental setting, project description, management and planning guidelines, procedural low charts for CEQA and NEPA/Section 106, and standard mitigation measures.
Margarita served as the project manager and principal investigator for the district-wide cultural resources survey for Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) which included the evaluation of 70 potentially eligible District school facilities for listing in the National Register and California Register, and included preservation guidelines for the district-wide facilities modernization program.
She conducted CEQA Compliance reviews for select projects including rehabilitation of Long Beach Polytechnic Auditorium and Woodrow Wilson Auditorium. Margarita completed a district-wide historic resources survey for the Santa Monica Unified School District, and provided preservation consultation for modernization and additions to selected school sites.
As part of the larger USC Master Plan Project Margarita prepared a historic resources analysis for the USC Student Union Project IS/MND evaluating the Formalist Modern Norman Topping Center and impacts to the adjacent Commons Building and surrounding historic district. She also prepared a HABS report for the Schoenburg Institute at USC. Other HABS reports for educational facilities include the Gymnasium at the University of La Verne, and the Administration Building at Harvard-Westlake Academy.
Harkham Hillel Hebrew Academy Renovation and Expansion Project, Historic Resources Assessment and Impacts Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA. Principal Investigator/Project Manager. Margarita directed the historic significance analysis of two school buildings—the original Oakhurst Building designed by master architect Sydney Eisenshtat in 1963 in the Modern Style and the Doheny Building constructed in 1989 and designed by Harshad Patel. She oversaw preparation of an intensive-level Historic Resource Assessment Report for the two buildings in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s requirements for preparing historic resource evaluation reports. ESA found that the Oakhurst Building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources under criteria A/1 and C/3, but it did not meet the requirements for local eligibility under the City of Beverly Hills criteria.
The client plans to rehabilitate the existing buildings, which would be updated for current use and continue to function as school buildings. The proposed project would add two additions to the rear of the property in order to accommodate additional classroom and gymnasium space. Margarita oversaw preparation of a character-defining features analysis and provided design consultation for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to reduce potential project impacts to less than significant. She also conducted an impacts analysis of the proposed project and prepared a preservation plan that was incorporated into the project as a project design feature to ensure the project would meet the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City of Beverly Hills as an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Rehabilitation of the Dunbar Hotel, 4255 S. Central Avenue, Los Angeles, CA.
Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian. As a Project Manager, Dr.
Jerabek-Bray directed a careful space-by-space inventory of character-defining features (including all windows) associated with the Dunbar Hotel’s period of significance (1928-1970). This included photo documentation of each feature along with a written description, condition, and treatment options. ESA recorded 425 character- defining features and spaces into an electronic database. Dr. Jerabek was principal author for the rehabilitation report that included a project description, methods, historical background and construction history, accompanied by historic photographs, an architectural description of existing conditions, a maintenance plan for high-integrity features, a restoration plan for low-integrity features, and a replication plan. The written report also provided a list of any issues and concerns that should be taken into account during the building rehabilitation and for the long-term preservation of the Dunbar Hotel. The hotel reopened in June 2013 as a senior living facility amidst local fanfare, “An encore for the historic Dunbar Hotel,” Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2013. The project was the recipient of the 2014 Westside Prize from the Westside Urban Forum and recipient of a 2014 Preservation Award from the L.A. Conservancy.
Historical Resources and Preservation Consulting Services for The Culver Studios, Culver City, CA. Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian. Since late 2014, Dr. Jerabek-Bray and ESA’ s Historic Resources Practice has provided a suite of services including historical resources evaluation, environmental review and documentation, and historic preservation consultation services for the CPA-6 Specific Plan, and the CPA-7 Specific Plan known as “The Innovation Plan,” a blueprint for the future of The Culver Studios. Dr. Jerabek is the point of contact for historic services, attends client and city meetings, attends public hearings, provides technical direction and advice, directs and conducts the preparation of report deliverables, directs and conducts construction monitoring, and acts as the City’s preservation officer for the Innovation Plan.
The Plan will transform the 14.3-acre Studio into a new media production hub, keeping the Studio on the vanguard of changing production practices in the entertainment industry. The Culver Studios is a motion picture studio in downtown Culver City established in 1919 by Thomas Ince, and eventually became the home of RCA, one of the “Big Eight” major motion picture companies in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Studio was the production site of historically significant motion pictures like King Kong, Gone with the Wind, and Citizen Kane. The Innovation Plan will restore and re-group historic structures adjacent to the Mansion, build new support buildings near existing historic sound-stages, and establish a creative campus in the core of the 14.3-acre studio lot. The Studio’s 100-year history will be showcased, historic bungalows will be preserved, and original landscaping in front of the Mansion will be restored. The Innovation Plan balances the need to provide state-of-the-art studio facilities, while retaining the Studio’s unique ambiance and prominent place in the community. ESA surveyed and evaluated the Studio’s historical resources, provided input to the development of The Plan to reduce impacts to historical resources, completed HABS report for Bungalows S, T, U and V, prepared a Relocation and Rehabilitation Plan for the bungalows, conducted construction monitoring for relocation of the bungalows, conducted plan reviews for tenant improvements to the Mansion and associated historic buildings in the historic core, conducted a landscape analysis, and provided documentation and input for the landscape restoration. ESA also prepared the environmental documentation for The Innovation Plan EIR, and is implementing the mitigation program for historical resources including HABS documentation of Stages 2/3/4 and a salvage program, preparation of a preservation plan for the Studio, and development of an interpretive program for the Studio.
Historic Resources and Preservation Consultation Services for the Redevelopment of the Fred C. Nelles State Reform School, Whittier, CA. Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian. The Fred C. Nelles Correctional Facility is a listed California State Landmark, and is significant as the state’s first reform school for boys. The 1920s-1930s Tudor Revival-style campus is currently vacant and will soon be redeveloped as a multi-use residential and commercial project, “The Groves”, entitled under the certified Lincoln Specific Plan EIR. For over a decade, Dr. Jerabek-Bray has been providing Historic Resources and Preservation Consultation services to the developer, Brookfield Homes. Work began with preparation of a historic resources assessment report to clarify the regulatory status and assessed the potential eligibility of a historic district. No district was found to be present, but eight individual resources were identified. Margarita conducted an opportunities and constraints analysis and provided input to the developer on managing impacts to historic resources and the feasibility of adaptive reuse of the individual buildings for the project.
She directed preparation of feasibility studies for the EIR, that were peer reviewed by the City’s consultants. She provided peer review of the Lincoln Plan EIR on behalf of the developer, and attended city meetings and hearings for the EIR. Once the EIR was certified, she worked with the developer’s architect to prepare rehabilitation plans for the individual resources to be retained and adaptively reused. The rehabilitation plans were peer reviewed by the City and the City’s preservation consultant. She directed ESA’s historic team in the completion of a HABS/HALS for the campus, with photography by Positive Image. She also worked with Eye-Glass Productions on a documentary film, and oral histories. Dr. Jerabek-Bray assisted the client to implement a full suite of mitigation measures including a heritage trail, a signage program, oral histories, salvage program, and construction monitoring for rehabilitation historic buildings. She recently completed consultation services and construction monitoring for adaptive reuse of the school’s Commissary as a community center (The Commons), which is the first historic building to be restored. The Commons project received a Gold Nugget merit award (2020) for best rehabilitation project from Pacific Coast Builders Conference (PCBC).
Home Savings and Loan Art and Architecture Conservation Services, Interpretive Exhibit, Montebello, CA. Project Manager/Principal Investigator. Margarita provided project management and oversight for the conservation work of the art and architecture and an interpretive exhibit for the Montebello branch of Home Savings and Loan Association. Constructed in 1973, the Montebello branch was designed by Millard Sheets (1907–1989), an accomplished, nationally prominent artist and designer, with integrated art works by the Millard Sheets Design Company. The building and art works were preserved in preparation for the building’s new use as a medical office by PIH Health. ESA provided oversight for the conservation work undertaken by Preservation Arts.
Additionally, Margarita assisted with the development of a project schedule, conducted conservation monitoring and documentation, and provided project oversight during the implementation of the conservation project to ensure that the cleaning and repair of the art works and exterior architectural materials was conducted in accordance with accepted standards for art and architectural conservation work, that the work completed is of acceptable quality, and that the project stayed on schedule and within budget. After the conservation work was completed, she oversaw the development of an interpretive exhibit to beautify the interior and protect the building’s important art, architecture, and history. The exhibit contains professionally mounted permanent narrative panels and photographic enlargements with captions illustrating the key information about the Montebello Branch and its historic use. One of the highlights of the interpretive exhibit is a reproduction of the original tapestry hung its original location for which ESA coordinated with the Mingei International Museum. The project was the recipient of a prestigious 2016 Preservation Design Award from the California Preservation Foundation.
Rancho Los Amigos South Campus EIR, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Downey. CA. Project Manager/Principal Architectural Historian.
The County of Los Angeles (County) proposes redevelopment of a portion of the Rancho Los Amigos (RLA) South Campus which is located in the City of Downey.
The 74-acre RLA South Campus was the home of the “Los Angeles County Poor Farm” that was established in 1880s to provide room and board to indigent citizens in exchange for agricultural labor, then served as an infirmary and later evolved into a hospital facility in 1932. The RLA South Campus functioned as a major hospital complex from 1956 to the 1990s, when it was abandoned. The RLA South Campus is currently unoccupied and has been designated as the RLA Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. The County is proposing redevelopment of a 21-acre portion of the RLA South Campus with County uses, including a Sheriff’s Station Crime Laboratory, Internal Services Department Headquarters, and Probation Department Headquarters. The project will include supporting parking and installation of utilities and other features on a site that has been abandoned for nearly 30 years. Building demolition and/or repurposing or relocation of existing buildings will be required. ESA lead the CEQA process on behalf of the County, including preparation of all technical studies in support of a full-scope EIR for the RLA South Campus Project. This included a Historic District Evaluation, archaeological surveys, traffic, water supply, arborist services, and all other CEQA-required topics. ESA is also served in an Executive Consultant role to the County, to advise on other potential future projects at the RLA Campus.
Alison Garcia Kellar
Senior Architectural Historian
Alison is a senior architectural historian with 9 years of professional and academic experience with a background in historic preservation, design, and museum collections. Her work with historic resources and cultural heritage in California has included managing and authoring historic resource assessments, National Register Nominations, historic structure reports, feasibility studies, Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, in addition to extensive archival research and resource documentation. Alison applies her understanding of preservation design and historic interiors to inform impacts analyses of proposed development and recommendations for adaptive reuse.
Relevant Experience
Earl Carroll Theatre Historic Structure Report, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Alison was the lead author of the Historic Structure Report created for the rehabilitation of the historic Earl Carroll Theatre in Hollywood.
Constructed in 1938, the property is significant for its association with owneroperator Earl Carroll, Hollywood nightlife, and architect Gordon B. Kaufmann. The theatre is a listed LA Historic-Cultural Monument and has been identified as eligible for the National Register. In recent years, the theatre has been rented by television network studios as sound stages, and as a result some public areas have been modified over time. Alison conducted supplemental in-depth research, participated with the creation of a detailed interior and exterior characterdefining features analysis, and assisted with the analysis of the theatre’s current condition. She developed recommendations in compliance with the SOI standards that sensitively guide stakeholders with ongoing preservation efforts.
Celes King III Swimming Pool Historic American Building Survey, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Architectural Historian, Deputy Project Manager. ESA was hired to conduct HABS documentation for the City of Los Angeles Park and Recreation Department. Constructed in the early 1960s, the Celes King III Swimming Pool was designed by architect Albert Criz in the Mid-Century Modern-Expressionist style.
Alison conducted in-depth research related to the history of the surrounding recreational complex, construction of the swimming pool, architect, and neighboring communities.
Alpine Village Preservation Consulting Services, Unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Alison was the lead author of the preliminary historical significance evaluation determination for the Alpine Village complex, a European-style shopping center located near Torrance, California.
Comprised of seven buildings constructed between 1969 and 1974, the complex is an example of an increasingly rare type of roadside architecture, and retains high historic integrity. Alison participated in conducting in-depth construction chronology research, determining the complex’s period of significance, and
EDUCATION
MS, Historic
Preservation, University
of Pennsylvania
BA, Design, University of
California at Davis
9 YEARS EXPERIENCE
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
Latinos in Heritage
Conservation, Education
Committee Member
California Preservation
Foundation, Member
Society of Architectural
Historians, Southern
California Chapter
Member
National Trust for
Historic Preservation,
Member
AWARDS
Albert Binder Travel
Fellowship, 2012 and
2013
PennDesign
Departmental Grant,
2011-2013
Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S.
identified both interior and exterior character-defining features for the property to help guide ongoing planning efforts.
Whittier Public Library, Whittier CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Alison was the lead author of the Historic Resources Assessment which determined that the library is significant as an individual resource under National Register Criteria A and C. Constructed in 1958, the property is significant for its association with MidCentury Modernism, postwar period institutional properties, and architect William Henry Harrison. Alison assembled the construction history for the library and the Whittier Civic Center. She created a detailed character-defining features analysis identifying significant and contributing features at the property’s interior, exterior, and site. Alison coordinated with the project architect to ensure that the project met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI) in order to meet community’s contemporary needs while respecting the building’s historic character. Alison authored and oversaw the production of a HABS report to document the library building prior to selective demolition and project construction.
Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Historic Resource Evaluation and Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Diego, CA. Senior Architectural Historian.
Alison conducted an HRA for the 1930s, 40s, and 50s-designed elementary school campus. The property was found to be a historic district eligible for its association with the post-war development of the Kensington neighborhood, and for its association with two master San Diego architects. The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and a CEQA analysis was performed, resulting in the Mitigation Measures and design considerations for future construction within the district. Alison authored and oversaw the production of a HABS report to document the campus and its buildings prior to project construction.
1202 3rd Street Promenade Preservation Consulting, Santa Monica, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Constructed in 1949 as a JC Penny department store, the commercial building was designed in the Late Moderne style. ESA previously worked to produce a Landmark Assessment Report, and today, the property is recognized as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. Alison conducted a SOI Standards conformance review of a proposed tenant improvement project for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
1221 Hermosa Avenue Preservation Consulting, Hermosa Beach, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. ESA serves as a historic preservation consultant to the City of Hermosa Beach, and has a longstanding relationship with the building at 1221 Hermosa Boulevard, known as the Bijou Building. The building is a former historic theatre and bank designed in the NeoClassical Revival style, constructed in 1923.
Alison evaluated proposed tenant improvement modifications including the removal of non-original features and the retention of original features related to original theatre and bank uses. Alison has conducted design reviews which included an understanding of all modifications to the space over time, characterdefining features analyses, and reviews of proposed plans against CEQA thresholds and the SOI Standards for compliance. Alison is currently participating with overseeing the construction monitoring efforts for the theatre space as part of this ongoing project.
Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S.