Item E-2 Agenda Report — Beverly Hills City Council, June 21, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

Page 1 of 6 ends

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Ryan Gohlich, AICP, Director of Community Development Timothea Tway, AICP, City Planner
Subject: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S MARCH 2, 2022 ISSUANCE AND APPROVAL OF A

CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY FOR THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE
Attachments: 1. March 15, 2022 City Council Agenda Report (without attachments)

2. April 12, 2022 City Council Agenda Report (without attachments)

3. Certificate of Ineligibility Notice of Decision (without attachments)

4. Certificate of Ineligibility Memorandum

5. Historical Assessment Report (ESA)

6. Peer Review, Jan Ostashay (OAC)

7. Publications for Review

8. Russian-English Translation Provided by Applicant and Staff

9. Applicant Correspondence

10. Applicant’s Response to Validity of Publications

11. Publication Verification Memorandum, Jan Ostashay (OAC)

12. Public Comments

RECOMMENDATION
This item is a City Council-ordered review of the Director of Community Development’s March 2, 2022, issuance and approval of a Certificate of Ineligibility for the residence at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. At the conclusion of the public hearing on the matter, the Council could render a decision to approve or deny the Certificate of Ineligibility.

INTRODUCTION
A Certificate of Ineligibility, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10-3-3221, is a determination by the Director of Community Development (or the Cultural Heritage Commission in the event the Director declines to issue said Certificate) regarding a property’s eligibility to be locally landmarked. A certificate of ineligibility, if granted, bars the Cultural Heritage Commission or the F-2
Meeting Date: June 21, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

City Council from initiating landmark designation proceedings concerning a particular property for a period of seven years from the date of issuance. While a certificate of ineligibility is in effect, the subject property cannot be listed on the local inventory, or subject to the provisions of Municipal Code pertaining to designated and/or eligible historic resources in the City. The Certificate of Ineligibility process was originally created to offer greater certainty to property owners as to the historic status of their properties in order for improvements or replacement projects to move forward in a more streamlined fashion and without the uncertainty of further review or evaluation of the potential historic merits of the subject structures.

On March 2, 2022, a Certificate of Ineligibility was issued for 1001 North Roxbury Drive. The Certificate of Ineligibility application submitted for the subject property by the applicant, as well as an accompanying historic assessment report prepared by ESA (dated October 2021), was peer reviewed by the City’s historic consultant, Jan Ostashay with OAC, prior to its issuance by staff.

Upon conducting a peer review of the application and assessment report, OAC in its memo dated January 12, 2022, concluded that the subject property appeared to satisfy all of the “A” Criteria for designation. However, OAC also concluded that the property did not meet any of significance Criteria under Part “B,” in particular B2: it is an “exceptional work” by a master architect.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate of Ineligibility, Councilmember Mirisch requested that an item be placed on the March 15, 2022, agenda to consider a call for review of the Certificate of Ineligibility. During the City Council meeting on March 15, two previously unknown periodicals with articles that discussed the residence were brought to the Council’s attention. Due to the fact that there was not sufficient time to review the articles and determine if they could have a material impact on the City Council’s discussion, the City Council continued the item to the April 12 meeting. In addition, the representatives of the applicant agreed to waive the timelines set forth in the Municipal Code to allow the Council to continue the item to April 12 in order to provide sufficient time for review of the articles. On April 12, the City Council discussed the item once more to consider the merits of the two newly discovered publications, Luxe Interiors + Design and Architectural Digest Russia, which were previously brought forward at the March 15 meeting. The Council ultimately voted to call up the decision for review to further analyze the publications and verify the legitimacy of the Architectural Digest Russia magazine. No hearing date was set for the review of the Certificate of Ineligibility, as it was not clear how much time may be needed in order to gather additional information and facts about the publications. On May 10, 2022, the City Council set the hearing date for the review of the item for the June 21, 2022 meeting.

BACKGROUND
A Certificate of Ineligibility application was submitted for the single-family residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, which was designed and constructed in a Regency Revival architectural style by Carleton Burgess in 1942. Although Burgess was a designer and contractor, he is included on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects for his important contributions to the urban development of the City.

The subject residence and garage sit on a large, double lot at the north westerly corner of North Roxbury Drive and Lexington Road. The main street-facing elevation is on Roxbury Drive and the rear of the property is bounded by Whittier Drive. The Regency Revival style residence was originally permitted as a two-story, 8,700 square-foot, 12-room, single-family residence plus garage. The exterior is clad in a combination of stucco, brick veneer (painted white) and horizontal clapboard siding, with a chimney constructed of brick and the roof clad with composite shingles.

Meeting Date: June 21, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

The entrance of the residence is located, generally, at the center of the main building massing on the primary north elevation. In 1941, a permit was also issued for the construction of a 4-room, 1- story, wood-frame bath house that remains extant at the rear of the property. A non-original tennis pavilion, tennis court, and swimming pool are also present at the site.

While there have been multiple additions and alterations made to the subject residence, landscaping, and landscape features over time, the majority of the changes have occurred at the rear and beyond public view. The property is said to retain all six applicable aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) and also retains the character- defining features of the Regency Revival architectural style. The original overall integrity of the building, therefore, appears uncompromised. Despite the subject residence’s high architectural character and original condition reflecting the design by Burgess, the property did not appear to satisfy the required criteria for local designation outlined in the City’s Municipal Code in conjunction with the issuance of a Certificate of Ineligibility for the structure on March 2, 2022.

DISCUSSION
For a structure to be designated in the City of Beverly Hills without the owner’s consent, the Municipal Code requires that a set of criteria (A Criteria and B Criteria) be reviewed by the Cultural heritage Commission or the City Council to determine the historic eligibility of a property and for listing on the local register of historic properties in the City. The A Criteria in the Municipal Code must all be met (A1 – A4):

A1, The property is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
A2, The property possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
A3, The property retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and A4, The property 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.

In addition to the “A Criteria”, the Municipal Code requires that at least one of the following “B Criteria” be met in the determination of local historic eligibility:

B1, The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; B2, The property is an exceptional work by a Master Architect; B3, The property 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 paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
B4, The property is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
B5, The property is an iconic property; or
B6, The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.

Based on the documentary evidence provided to staff, including a historic assessment report prepared for the subject property by ESA and the peer review of the assessment report by the Meeting Date: June 21, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

City’s historic consultant, OAC (Jan Ostashay), it was concluded that the residence did not satisfy the required local landmark criteria for historic designation as outlined in the municipal code. While the subject property met all of the “A Criteria”, it did not meet any of the “B Criteria”. Therefore, a decision granting the certificate to the applicant was issued and then circulated to the City Council.

During the March 15th City Council meeting, evidence was presented to the Council with respect to the potential historic eligibility of the subject residence. The Chair and another Commissioner from the Cultural Heritage Commission brought forth two magazine articles (Luxe Interiors + Design and a Russian Edition of Architectural Digest) that, it appeared, could potentially alter the determination under Criterion B2 for local landmark designation outlined in the City’s Municipal Code (BHMC, Section 10-3-3212), in that the residence might qualify as an “exceptional work” by a Master Architect.

The Municipal Code defines “exceptional work” 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.

Review and Background of Publications
Following the April 12, 2022 meeting, staff requested the City’s historic consultant (OAC) to conduct further research on the publications, and in particular research the validity of the Architectural Digest Russia article. OAC has since determined that the Architectural Digest Russia periodical, that was previously uncovered and brought forward to the City Council hearing in March and also reviewed at the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting, was a pre-publication mock- up of the magazine with placeholder text and photographs. OAC reviewed a legitimate copy of the Architectural Digest Russia magazine dating from November 2009 with the relevant article and photographs of the Roxbury property, in addition to an online version of the article at the Architectural Digest Russia web site from January 28, 2014 (Attachment 11).

The City’s historic consultant’s research on the validity of the Architectural Digest Russia magazine’s article found that Dominic Bradbury, a noted author, writer, and lecturer on architecture and design, wrote the initial article about the contemporary remodel work (interior design remodel and backyard improvements) of the 1001 North Roxbury Drive property in 2008- 2009. Photos accompanying the article were taken by Richard Powers, an acknowledged professional photographer specializing in architecture, interiors, and the built environment. This feature article was sent out for syndication by a public relations firm (Taylor & Company) hired by the project architect (Mark Rios) for publicity and marketing purposes.

The feature article was picked up by various publications, including the Architectural Digest Russia and Luxe Interiors + Design. The Architectural Digest Russia magazine’s editor (Anastasia Meeting Date: June 21, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

Romashkevich) and photographer (Mikhail Stepanov) adapted Bradbury’s article and photos for publishing in the magazine in the fall of 2009, entitled “A House in the Style of the 1960s”. Luxe magazine’s features editor and writer (Caren Kurlander) adaptively wrote her own feature on the contemporary interior design work and new backyard improvements of the Roxbury property, which was published as Luxe Interiors + Design Winter 2015 Los Angeles region edition of the magazine, as “Hollywood Story”; the same article was also featured on the publication’s website dating to June 2, 2015, with the title “A Transitional Beverly Hills Residence with an Old Hollywood Feel”. Research found that the text and photographs of the Luxe magazine were also adapted and used on the 1st Dibs website (captioned “Roxbury Residence”) and in the book Neo-Classical Villa Design (entitled “Roxbury Renovation”) edited by Jia Song in 2013. In addition, Bradbury published various versions of his original article regarding the Roxbury property in two of his own books, The Iconic Interior: 1900 to the Present (published 2012, 2020) and Interior Design Close Up (published 2015). All of the abovementioned publications are provided in Attachment 11 for reference.

ANALYSIS
The Council’s primary task in reviewing the Certificate of Ineligibility is to determine whether the property satisfies the municipal code definition of “exceptional work.” As noted above, the Municipal Code defines “exceptional work” as:

In particular, the Council must determine whether the work by Master Architect Carleton Burgess, which is the exterior of the home itself and not the interior remodel performed by Mark Rios, “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.

In applying the “exceptional work” standard to the subject property, the Council may wish to consider the following information as it relates to determining whether a Certificate of Ineligibility should be issued:

Number of Publications. Two publications (Luxe Interiors + Design and Architectural Digest Russia) were previously made available to the Council for consideration. Since that time, Jan Ostashay has identified additional publications (included in Attachment 11 and discussed above) that all appear to be adaptations of the original feature article authored by Dominic Bradbury and originally published in Architectural Digest Russia. In the event that the publications are found to meet the requirements of the “exceptional Meeting Date: June 21, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

work” definition, then a sufficient quantity of publications is available to satisfy the municipal code; however, the Council may also wish to give consideration to the fact that the original article was sent out for syndication by a public relations firm working on behalf of Mark Rios for publicity and marketing purposes, and that although the residence appears in multiple publications, each publication appears to be an update or adaptation of the original.

Nature of the Publications. The municipal code requires that for a publication to be applicable, it must substantively discuss or photographically depict the work of the Master Architect (Carleton Burgess in this case). Each publication does include at least one photograph (oftentimes the same photograph) of the front façade of the home, and the publications do include some text that makes reference to the beauty, glamour, and Old Hollywood feeling of the home, which could potentially meet the baseline requirement of being substantively discussed or photographically depicted. However, it is also worth noting that the primary focus of each of the publications is the interior and backyard remodel work performed by Mark Rios, and although there is a photograph of the front façade, it is unclear whether the photograph of the facade is simply provided for context, or if it is intended to highlight and recognize the work of Carleton Burgess. In addition, it is unclear whether the text rises to the level of being substantive for the purpose of recognizing the work of Carleton Burgess. Notably, none of the publications mention Burgess by name. Conclusion. The question of whether a Certificate of Ineligibility should be issued for the subject residence is ultimately determined by how one interprets and applies the municipal code language, and in particular how one views the applicability of the identified publications. While it is clear that the residence is of a high architectural quality, retains substantial integrity associated with Carleton Burgess, and is photographed at least once in each of the subject publications, the nature and genesis of the publications that would need to be relied on remain somewhat questionable since they do not appear to directly pertain to the work of Burgess, but rather are intended to recognize the work of Mark Rios.

Accordingly, issuance of a Certificate of Ineligibility continues to be a potentially reasonable outcome, but is ultimately dependent on how the publications are interpreted.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs.

Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
March 15, 2022 City Council Agenda Report
(without attachments)

Page 1 of 2 ends

AGENDA REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council make a determination as to whether or not the subject Certificate of Ineligibility decision will be called up for review. If a majority of the Council votes to call the matter up, staff recommends that the item be placed on the agenda for the first meeting in June.

INTRODUCTION
Councilmember Mirisch has requested this item be placed on the Council’s agenda to determine if there is Council support to call up for review a Certificate of Ineligibility decision issued for the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

DISCUSSION
A Certificate of Ineligibility, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10-3-3221, is a determination by the Director of Community Development or the Cultural Heritage Commission as to the eligibility of a potentially historic resource in the City for local designation and listing on the City’s Register Meeting Date: March 15, 2022
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Timothea Tway, AICP, City Planner
Mark Odell, Urban Designer
Subject: REQUEST BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH TO DISCUSS WHETHER

TO ORDER REVIEW OF THE ISSUANCE AND APPROVAL OF A

CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY FOR THE EXISTING POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH ROXBURY
DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Municipal Code Excerpts, BHMC Section 1-4-201, et seq.

2. Certificate of Ineligibility Notice of Decision

3. Certificate of Ineligibility Memorandum

4. Historic Assessment Report (ESA)

5. Peer Review, Jan Ostashay, Ostashay and Associates
Consulting (OAC)
H-2
Meeting Date: March 15, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

of Historic Properties. A certificate of ineligibility, if granted, bars the Cultural Heritage Commission or the City Council from initiating landmark designation proceedings concerning a particular property for a period of seven years from the date of issuance. While a certificate of ineligibility is in effect, the subject property cannot be listed on the local inventory, or subject to the provisions of Municipal Code pertaining to designated and/or eligible historic resources in the City. The Certificate of Ineligibility process was originally created to offer greater certainty to property owners as to the historic status of their properties in order for improvements or replacement projects to move forward in a more streamlined fashion and without further review or evaluation of the potential historic merits of the subject structures.

On February 1, 2022 a memorandum was prepared by City staff, pursuant to an application received from the property owner, and circulated to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Along with the memorandum, a Historic Assessment Report prepared by the applicant’s historical consultant (ESA) and a peer review memorandum prepared by the City’s historic Consultant, Jan Ostashay of Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC), was circulated. The circulation of the subject documents to the Cultural Heritage Commission allows a period of review by the Commissioners during which they may provide any additional pertinent information to the staff as the review of the eligibility of the property is undertaken. During the circulation to the Commission there was no additional information provided to staff regarding the eligibility of the subject potential resource.

The staff memorandum, the applicant’s consultant’s assessment, and the peer review by the City’s consultant all concluded that the residence on North Roxbury Drive did not meet the criteria for local historic designation.

On March 2, 2022, staff completed the review of the subject resource and concluded, based on the documentary evidence provided, including the historic assessment report by ESA and the peer review by Jan Ostashay, that the residence did not meet the strict criteria for historic designation outlined in the Municipal Code. A decision granting the certificate to the applicant was subsequently issued and then circulated to the City Council.

Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 1-4-201, et seq., the City Council may order a review of any decision made by any commission, board, or official of the city. The process to initiate this review and set a hearing is specifically set forth in the municipal code, and those provisions are attached for reference. The decision to order a review at the March 15th City Council Meeting shall be limited to the question of whether to call the item up for a hearing before the City Council at a future formal meeting because the matter merits review by the Council, and shall not include any evaluation or assessment of the merits or circumstances of the case or the administrative action. That discussion would take place at a noticed public hearing at an upcoming formal Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs.

Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 2
April 12, 2022 City Council Agenda Report
(without attachments)

Page 1 of 4 ends

AGENDA REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the contents of this report, and determine whether there is City Council support to order review of the issuance of a Certificate of Ineligibility decision that was administratively approved by the Community Development Department for the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

INTRODUCTION
On March 2, 2022, a Certificate of Ineligibility was issued for the residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. Attachment 1 contains more information about this process. Subsequently, Councilmember Mirisch requested that an item be placed on the March 15, 2022, agenda to consider a call for review of the Certificate of Ineligibility. During the City Council meeting on March 15, two previously unknown periodicals with articles that discussed the residence were Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Timothea Tway, AICP, City Planner
Mark Odell, Urban Designer
Subject: REQUEST BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRISCH TO DISCUSS WHETHER

TO ORDER REVIEW OF THE ISSUANCE AND APPROVAL OF A

CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY FOR THE EXISTING POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1001 NORTH ROXBURY
DRIVE
Attachments: 1. March 15, 2022 City Council Agenda Report (without attachments)

2. Certificate of Ineligibility Notice of Decision

3. Certificate of Ineligibility Memorandum

4. Historic Assessment Report (ESA)

5. Peer Review, Jan Ostashay, Ostashay and Associates
Consulting (OAC)

6. Publications for Review

7. Russian-English Translation Provided by Applicant and Staff

8. Applicant’s Response to Validity of Publications
G-2
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

brought to the Council’s attention. Due to the fact that there was not sufficient time to review the articles and determine if they could have a material impact on the City Council’s discussion, the City Council continued the item to the April 12 meeting. In addition, the representatives of the applicant agreed to waive the timelines set forth in the Municipal Code to allow the Council to continue the item to April 12 in order to provide sufficient time for review of the articles.

DISCUSSION
The subject single-family residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was built in 1942 for Mildred R. Naylor and designed and constructed by Carleton Burgess (locally recognized Master Architect) in a Regency Revival architectural style. Carleton Burgess was the designer and contractor and, although not an architect, he is included on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects for his important contributions to the urban development of the City. While there have been multiple additions and alterations made to the subject residence, landscaping, and landscape features over time, the majority of the changes have occurred at the rear and beyond public view. The property is said to retain all six applicable aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) and also retains the character-defining features of the Regency Revival architectural style. The original overall integrity of the building, therefore, appears uncompromised. Despite the subject residence’s high architectural character and original condition reflecting the design by Carleton Burgess, the property did not appear to satisfy the criteria for local designation outlined in the City’s Municipal Code in conjunction with the issuance of a Certificate of Ineligibility for the structure.

For a structure to be designated in the City of Beverly Hills without the owner’s consent, the Municipal Code requires that a set of criteria (A Criteria and B Criteria) be reviewed by the Cultural heritage Commission or the City Council to determine the historic eligibility of a property and for listing on the local register of historic properties in the City. The A Criteria in the Municipal Code requires all of the following findings be met (A1 – A4):

For the subject residence, the City’s historical consultant (Jan Ostashay, Ostashay and Associates Consulting – Attachment 5) determined that the subject property did meet all of the “A Criteria”
In addition to the “A Criteria”, the Municipal Code requires that at least one of the following findings be met in conjunction with the “B Criteria” in the determination of local historic eligibility:

Page 3 of 4 ends

paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
B4, The property is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
B5, The property is an iconic property; or
B6, The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.

The Certificate of Ineligibility issued by the Director explains that the property did not meet any of the “B Criteria.” However, as described above, during the March 15th City Council meeting, evidence was presented to the Council with respect to the potential historic eligibility of the subject residence. The Chair and another Commissioner from the Cultural Heritage Commission brought forth two magazine articles (Luxe Interiors and Design and a Russian Edition of Architectural Digest) that, it appeared, could potentially alter the determination under Criterion B2 for local landmark designation outlined in the City’s Municipal Code (BHMC, Section 10-3-3212), that the residence was an “exceptional work” by a Master Architect.

The Municipal Code defines “exceptional work” as:

Since the March 15, 2022 hearing, both staff and the applicant team translated the article from the Russian edition of Architectural Digest (translations can be found in Attachment 7). In addition, staff and the City’s historic consultant, Jan Ostashay have reviewed the two articles in question in order to determine whether they appear to meet the criteria for publications outlined in the municipal code.

After analyzing the articles in question and consulting with Jan Ostashay, it is staff’s opinion that, while articles in publications such as an international version of Architectural Digest or a publication like Luxe Interiors and Design could, in theory, satisfy the requirements of the “B Criteria,” these specific articles do not appear to satisfy the requirements. First, the two articles in question pertain mainly to the interiors, interior design, and backyard improvements of the residence and do not substantively discuss or photographically depict the structure itself, its architecture, or the original designer of the building. The Luxe magazine article specifically includes one photo of the front façade of the residence, and three photos of recent backyard improvements, with additional photos highlighting the recent design makeover of the interior of the home. The Russian Architectural Digest includes different, but similar photos. In addition, it is the City’s historic consultant’s opinion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the authors and photographers associated with the two articles are considered “acknowledged Meeting Date: April 12, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

experts in the field of architecture.” Notwithstanding this opinion, which under different circumstances would potentially be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Commission for further discussion and interpretation, the question of being “acknowledged experts in the field of architecture” appears to be moot given that the publications do not substantively discuss or photographically depict the structure itself.

On April 6, 2022, staff received correspondence from the applicant’s historical consultant (ESA).

The correspondence (Attachment 8) received from ESA reviews the publications in question with regard to the residence, and determined that the subject articles mostly refer to interior improvements and do not substantively discuss the architecture or historic value of the residence.

The articles, therefore, in the opinion of ESA, do not meet the required definition of “exceptional work”, as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code.

CONCLUSION
While it is staff’s opinion that the subject articles that were brought forward to the City Council on March 15 would not alter staff’s original decision to issue the Certificate of Ineligibility, it is ultimately up to the City Council to determine whether the discovery of the two periodicals is sufficient grounds to order a review of the decision, at which time the Council would have the ability to more substantively discuss the merits and applicability of the articles in question.

Accordingly, staff seeks direction from the Council regarding whether the decision should be called up for review and a future hearing date scheduled.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs.

Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Certificate of Ineligibility
Notice of Decision
Attachment 3

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel. (310) 285-1141 Fax. (310) 858-5966
CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY (BHMC §10-3-3221)

NOTICE OF DECISION
Property Address 1001 North Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Property Owner Groverbury, LLC
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 220
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Applicant/Agent Murray D. Fischer, Law Offices of Murray D. Fisher 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 970
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Decision Certificate of Ineligibilty Granted
Date of Decision
DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION
In consideration of the property as a potential City of Beverly Hills Landmark under the criteria listed in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3212, the Director finds that the property at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is ineligible for local landmark designation. This determination is based upon the applicant’s historic resource assessment report produced by Environmental Science Associates[ESA], peerreview by the City’s historical consultant, Ostashay & Associates Consulting [OAC] (Attachment 2), City Staff analysis, and observations and other evidence. The assessment report and peer review are attached to this document for reference.

Primary façade (source: ESA)
March 2, 2022
Decision Valid Until
DocuSign Envelope ID: 25C9B05E-9F0C-4D2E-AFF5-87EC757574B1 March 1, 2029
Certificate of Ineligibility
Notice of Decision
1001 North Roxbury Drive

Page 3 of 4 ends

Table 1. Summary of Landmark Designation Criteria (Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3212) Criterion
No.

Criteria Subject property
meets criteria?
A landmark must satisfy all of the requirements in Section A:

A.1
It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
Yes
A.2
It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
Yes
A.3 It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and Yes A.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.

Yes
In addition to the requirements set forth in Section A above, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements in Section B:

B.1 It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; No B.2 It is an exceptional work by a Master Architect; No B.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 paragraphs, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
No
B.4 It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
No
B.5 It is an iconic property; or No
B.6 The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.

No
Criteria Subject property
meets criteria?
All criteria in Section A met? Yes
At least one criterion in Section B met? No
Does the subject property satisfy all the requirements in Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3212 to be considered an eligible property for landmark nomination and designation?
NO
DocuSign Envelope ID: 25C9B05E-9F0C-4D2E-AFF5-87EC757574B1 Certificate of Ineligibility
Notice of Decision
1001 North Roxbury Drive

Page 4 of 4 ends

EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE OF INELIGIBILITY (BHMC §10-3-3221D) An issued Certificate of Ineligibility bars the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council from initiating landmark designation proceedings concerning the subject property, in whole or in part, for a period of seven (7) years from the date of issuance. While a Certificate of Ineligibility is in effect, the subject property shall not be listed on the local inventory, and shall not be subject to the provisions of BHMC §10-3-3217 and 10-3-3218.

CALL UP AND APPEAL PROVISIONS
Only the applicant for a Certificate of Ineligibility shall be entitled to file an appeal of a decision regarding the certificate pursuant to the provisions in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 1. The City Council shall have the authority to call up such decisions for review pursuant to the provisions of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 2.

Any decision of the Director or the Commission regarding a Certificate of Ineligibility shall become final if no appeal is submitted within the applicable appeal period [any appeal petition shall be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision] and the decision is not called up for review by the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 2 [review may be ordered by motion of the Council duly adopted within thirty (30) calendar days after the issuance of the decision].

Per BHMC §10-3-3219, a decision by the Director may be appealed to the Cultural Heritage Commission within fifteen (15) days from the date of the decision pursuant to the procedures set forth in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 1.

Sincerely,
Ryan Gohlich, AICP
Director of Community Development
Attachments:

1. Historical Resources Assessment Report produced by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), dated October 2021

2. Peer Review produced by Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC), dated January 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 25C9B05E-9F0C-4D2E-AFF5-87EC757574B1 Certificate of Ineligibility
Memorandum
Attachment 4

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Corman and Cultural Heritage Commission
FROM: Mark Odell, Urban Designer
DATE: February 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Certificate of Ineligibility Application: 1001 North Roxbury Drive The Community Development Department is reviewing a Certificate of Ineligibility application for the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. The Historic Resources Assessment report by ESA submitted with the application concludes that the property does not retain sufficient integrity from the original period of significance, and does not satisfy any other Beverly Hills landmark criteria (under BHMC §10-3-3212). The historic assessment report for this site and residence was also peer reviewed by Jan Ostashay of Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC), whose analysis under the landmark criteria differs from that presented in the ESA Report; however, OAC also concludes that the subject property does not qualify under Beverly Hills Landmark Criteria (BHMC §10-3-3212).

Primary façade (source: ESA)
Certificate of Ineligibility
Notice of Decision
1001 North Roxbury Drive

Page 2 of 4 ends

BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS
The subject single-family residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was built in 1942 for Mildred R. Naylor and designed and constructed by Carleton Burgess in a Regency Revival architectural style. Carleton Burgess was the designer and contractor and, although not an architect, he is included on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects for his contributions to the urban development of the City.

The subject property is located in a residential tract which was first subdivided in 1923. This area of the City was developed with large, single-family residences designed in popular Period Revival and Regency Revival traditional architectural styles. The subject residence and garage sit on a large, double lot at the north westerly corner of North Roxbury Drive and Lexington Road. The main street-facing elevation is on Roxbury Drive and the rear of the property is bounded by Whittier Drive. The Regency Revival style residence was originally permitted as a two-story, 8,700 square-foot, 12-room, single-family residence plus garage. The exterior is clad in a combination of stucco, brick veneer (painted white) and horizontal clapboard siding, with a chimney constructed of brick and the roof clad with composite shingles. The entrance of the residence is located, generally, at the center of the main building massing on the primary north elevation. In 1941, a permit was also issued for the construction of a 4-room, 1-story, wood-frame bath house that remains extant at the rear of the property. A non-original tennis pavilion, tennis court, and swimming pool are also present at the site.

While there have been multiple additions and alterations made to the residence, landscaping, and landscape features over time, the majority of the changes have occurred at the rear and beyond public view. The property is said to retain all six applicable aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) and also retains the character-defining features of the Regency Revival architectural style. The original overall integrity of the building, therefore, appears uncompromised. Despite the subject residence’s high architectural character and original condition reflecting the design by Carleton Burgess, the property does not satisfy the definition of an “exceptional work” by the Master Architect (Landmark Criterion B.2), as it was not the subject of any publications or architectural awards discussing or honoring the property for its design and merit. Furthermore, a chain of title examination has found that none of the prominent and successful owners and occupants of the property met the definition of a “person of great importance” or a “person of great local prominence” (Landmark Criterion B.3 and B.4) contained in BHMC Section 10-3-3202.

In consideration of the subject property’s historical significance, based on the documentary evidence provided, which includes a historic resource assessment report by ESA and a peer review by OAC, the Director does not find the subject property at 1001 North Roxbury Drive to be eligible for local register listing. Consideration of California Register and National Register eligibility was not assessed in conjunction with this Certificate of Ineligibility.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 25C9B05E-9F0C-4D2E-AFF5-87EC757574B1 1001 North Roxbury Drive
Certificate of Ineligibility
Memorandum
2 of 4
The single-family residence located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was built in 1942 for Mildred R.

Naylor and designed and constructed by Carleton Burgess in a Regency Revival architectural style. Carleton Burgess was the designer and contractor and, although not an architect, he is included on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects for his contributions to the urban development of the city.

The subject property is located in a residential Tract which was first subdivided in 1923. This area of the City was developed with large, single-family residences designed in popular Period Revival and Regency Revival traditional architectural styles. The subject residence and garage sit on a large double lot at the north westerly corner of North Roxbury Drive and Lexington Road. The main street-facing elevation is on Roxbury Drive and the rear of the property is bordered by Whittier Drive. The residence was originally permitted as a 2-story 8,700 square-foot, 12-room, single-family residence plus garage. The exterior is clad in a combination of stucco, brick veneer (painted white) and horizontal clapboard siding with a chimney constructed of brick and the roof clad with composite shingles. The entrance of the residence is located, generally, at the center of the main building massing on the primary north elevation. In 1941 a permit was also issued for the construction of a 4-room, 1-story, wood-frame bath house that remains extant at the rear of the property. A non-original tennis pavilion, tennis court, and swimming pool are also present at the site.

There have been multiple additions and alterations made to the residence, landscaping, and landscape features over time; however the majority of the changes have occurred at the rear and beyond public view. The ESA Report argues that the property lacks sufficient integrity from its period of significance. However, OAC’s peer review outlines how the property does retain all six applicable aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling).

According to the ESA Report submitted by the applicant, the subject residence is large but not a distinctive or exceptional example of the Regency Revival style in Beverly Hills. OAC’s memorandum does consider the property to be a very good, classical example of Regency Revival architecture, embodying the distinctive characteristics of the idiom, through its retained character-defining features, and therefore does satisfy Criterion A.2. However, neither ESA’s nor OAC’s research uncovered any publications or architectural awards discussing or honoring the subject property for its architectural design or merit. As such, OAC concludes that the subject property cannot meet the definition of “exceptional work” (as defined in BHMC §10-3-3202), and therefore does not satisfy Criterion B.2, B.3, or B.4, and is not eligible as a local landmark under Beverly Hills criteria.

The ESA Report includes a chain of title examination, which identified a number of prominent and successful owners and occupants of the property. However, none of the owners and occupants of the property meet the definition of a “person of great importance” or a “person of great local prominence” contained in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-3202, and therefore the property does not satisfy landmark criteria B.3 or B.4. OAC’s memo concurs that neither of these criteria can be satisfied.

Based on the documentary evidence provided that includes a historic assessment report by ESA, and the peer review memorandum by OAC, it does not appear that the property at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is eligible for individual local register listing at this time. Consideration of California Register and National Register eligibility were not assessed in conjunction with this Certificate of Ineligibility.
1001 North Roxbury Drive
Certificate of Ineligibility
Memorandum
3 of 4
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3221, copies of the application for a Certificate of Ineligibility shall be provided promptly to members of the Commission by the Director to enable Commissioners to provide information to the Director concerning the subject property where appropriate. If you have any pertinent information regarding the subject property and its eligibility as a local landmark under the following criteria, please provide the information to me no later than Tuesday, February 15, 2022.

Landmark Designation Criteria (Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-3212) A landmark must satisfy all of the requirements in Section A:

A.1 Age It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
A.2 Style
It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
A.3 Integrity It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and A.4 Historic Value 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.

In addition to the requirements set forth in Section A above, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:

B.1 National Register It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; B.2 Exceptional
Work It is an exceptional work by a Master Architect;
B.3 Person of Great
Importance
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 paragraphs, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
B.4
Person of Great
Local
Prominence
It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
B.5 Iconic It is an iconic property; or
B.6 Voluntary
Designation
The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
1001 North Roxbury Drive
Certificate of Ineligibility
Memorandum
4 of 4
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section10-3-3221, if the Director does not find that the property is an eligible property, the Director shall issue the requested Certificate of Ineligibility; but if the Director believes that the property is an eligible property, the Director shall not issue the certificate. If the Director declines to issue a requested Certificate of Ineligibility, the Commission shall consider the matter de novo at its next meeting.

For further details on this project or procedure, please contact Mark Odell, Urban Designer at, (310) 285-1116 or [email protected].

C: Ryan Gohlich, Director of the Community Development; Timmi Tway, City Planner; Minjee Hahm, Associate Planner; Reina Kapadia, Associate Planner
BCC: CHC Commissioners
Attachment 5
Historical Assessment Report (ESA)

|
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California i ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1001 North Roxbury Drive
Historical Resources Assessment
Page
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................1 Project Location................................................................................................................3 Methodology .....................................................................................................................6 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................6 National Register of Historic Places.................................................................................7 State Register and Eligibility Criteria................................................................................9 City Level........................................................................................................................11 Environmental Setting...........................................................................................................12 Historic Contexts ............................................................................................................12 Development of Beverly Hills, 1822-1980......................................................................13 Regency Revival Style (1925-1950)...............................................................................15 Development, Construction, and Occupancy History ....................................................21 Beverly Hills Tract Development (1923 – 1950) ............................................................21 Construction History .......................................................................................................30 Carleton Lyle Burgess, Builder.......................................................................................41 Occupancy History .........................................................................................................56 Evaluation...............................................................................................................................62 Architectural Description.................................................................................................62 Significance Evaluation ..................................................................................................89 National Register and California Register......................................................................89 Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................................93 City of Beverly Hills.........................................................................................................94 Eligibility Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................................98 References............................................................................................................................100 Appendices
A Professional Qualifications
B Tract Maps
C.1 Building Permits: 1001 North Roxbury Drive
C.2 Building Permits: Original Permits of Other Burgess Properties D DPR Forms
Table of Contents
Page
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California ii ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional and Subject Property Vicinity Map ..........................................................4 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Subject Property and Vicinity................................................5 Figure 3 The Shepard Residence, designed by Paul Revere Williams in 1938 located at 626 North Siena Way, Bel-Air, Los Angeles........................................17 Figure 4 1978 photograph of the commercial property built in 1946 at 9634 Wilshire, Beverly Hills. ..........................................................................................18 Figure 5 Hollywood Regency residence 1033 Woodland Drive, Beverly Hills, designed by John Elgin Woolf in 1941. ................................................................18 Figure 6 Hollywood Regency residence 805 Hillcrest Road, Beverly Hills, designed by John Elgin Woolf in 1954. ................................................................................19 Figure 7 Hollywood Regency residence at 520 N. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, built in 1941...................................................................................................................19 Figure 8 1922 Sanborn map, future location of the subject property outlined in red..........23 Figure 9 1926 Sanborn map, future location of the subject property outlined in red..........23 Figure 10 Corner of North Roxbury Drive and Sunset Boulevard, approximately

0.20 miles from the subject property, 1928. .........................................................24 Figure 11 1938 aerial photo, future location of the subject property outlined in red. ...........24 Figure 12 1948 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................25 Figure 13 1950 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red............................................25 Figure 14 1953 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................26 Figure 15 1964 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................26 Figure 16 1969 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red............................................27 Figure 17 1977 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................27 Figure 18 1981 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................28 Figure 19 1994 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................28 Figure 20 2002 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................29 Figure 21 2009 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................29 Figure 22 2016 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.......................30 Figure 23 Excerpt of 1948 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........36 Figure 24 Excerpt of 1950 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red. .........................36 Figure 25 Excerpt of 1953 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........37 Figure 26 Excerpt of 1969 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red. .........................37 Figure 27 Excerpt of 1977 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........38 Figure 28 Excerpt of 1981 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........38 Figure 29 Excerpt of 1989 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........39 Figure 30 Excerpt of 1994 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........39 Figure 31 Excerpt of 2009 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........40 Figure 32 Excerpt of 2016 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red..........40 Figure 33 Excerpt of 2014 review of the City of Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects, completed by Jan Ostashay. Firms and individuals highlighted in red were identified as ineligible for listing. Burgess (outlined in yellow) was not removed from the Master Architect List as a result of this review and remains listed.................................................................................................46 Figure 34 Undated historic photo (ca. 1939) of 1002 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Jack Benny, built by Carleton Burgess...................................................47 Figure 35 2021 photo of 1002 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Jack Benny, built by Carleton Burgess. The home has undergone alterations since its construction, including the alteration of a window on the second floor and addition of a balcony and new fenestration and the expansion of the bay window on the first floor. .......................................................................................48 Historic Resource Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California iii ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Figure 36 Undated historic image of 1000 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Lucille Ball built by Carleton Burgess. ..................................................................48 Figure 37 2021 Photo of 1000 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Lucille Ball built by Carleton Burgess. The home has been substantially altered since its original construction, including changes to the entryway, fenestration openings, cladding, and roof.................................................................................49 Figure 38 Aerial view of the subject property. The overall footprint of the residence is outlined in orange. The porte-cochere is outlined in green, the garage is outlined in orange, and the projecting rear wing addition is outlined in blue........................................................................................................................63 Figure 39 Landscaping at the north elevation of the subject property, including brick paths and half-walls, mature trees, and manicured lawn. View to the north. .....................................................................................................................68 Figure 40 Manicured southern law. View to the southwest. .................................................68 Figure 41 Pool area on the west half of the lot. View to the south. ......................................69 Figure 42 Non-original koi pond at the northeast corner of the subject property’s lot.

View to the north. ..................................................................................................69 Figure 43 Non-original tennis court on the west side of the lot. View to the north. ..............70 Figure 44 Overall view of the subject property’s north elevation. .........................................70 Figure 45 Overall view of the subject property’s north elevation..........................................71 Figure 46 Overall view of the subject property’s north (primary elevation). View to the south................................................................................................................71 Figure 47 Main entrance to the subject property at the approximate center of the north elevation. Brick stairs lead up to a brick patio and front door with wood raised panels and leaded transom window in a classical molded wood surround. View to the south. .......................................................................72 Figure 48 East half of the north elevation featuring small arched window with molded wood surround and diamond shaped leaded frame and polygonal wood frame bay window. View to the south. ........................................................73 Figure 49 Polygonal wood frame bay window on the western portion of the north elevation. Pool area on the west half of the lot. View taken looking southwest. .............................................................................................................73 Figure 50 Non-original dormer window with flared pediment and aluminum frame on the west side of the north elevation. View to the east. .........................................74 Figure 51 Subject property’s porte-cochere on its north elevation. View to the south. ........74 Figure 52 East wall of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the west. ...................75 Figure 53 West wall of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the east....................75 Figure 54 The garage on the subject property’s north elevation featuring three identical 6-light aluminum frame double hung window with wood surrounds on the ground floor and dormer windows on the roof. View to the east..................................................................................................................76 Figure 55 Horizontal dormer with oval window on the subject property’s north garage. View to the south. ....................................................................................76 Figure 56 West elevation of the garage with non-original attached structure and service area. View to the west. .............................................................................77 Figure 57 Overall view of the subject property’s garage and porte-cochere’s south elevation with brick parking area. View to the north. ............................................77 Figure 58 South elevation of the subject property’s garage with likely alterations on the roof outlined in red. View to the north............................................................78 Figure 59 South elevation of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the north. .....................................................................................................................78 Table of Contents
Page
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California iv ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Figure 60 Residence’s original western elevation (outlined in green) with one story rear service wing alterations and additions on the south end (right). View to the east. ............................................................................................................79 Figure 61 Residence’s western elevation with one-story southern service wing (altered and additions constructed). View to the southeast. ................................79 Figure 62 Tripartite composition of western elevation’s one-story northern portion with likely non-original rectangular volume underneath the center of the pedimented roof overhang (red arrow). View to the east. ....................................80 Figure 63 Residence’s west elevation with brick fenced off patio area with decorative metal gateway. View to the northeast.................................................80 Figure 64 South elevation of the one-story projecting addition with wood clad pediment and identical 6-ight aluminum frame windows with wood shutters. View to the northwest.............................................................................81 Figure 65 East-facing elevation of the one-story addition at the subject property’s south rear elevation. View to the northwest..........................................................81 Figure 66 Overall view of the south elevation of the subject property with red arrows indicating location of additions/alterations. View to the north...............................82 Figure 67 South elevation (altered) of the subject property with altered arched openings on the first floor leading into a non-original covered patio area and non-original covered balcony on the second floor. View to the north. ..........83 Figure 68 Representative 6-light wood frame doors (non-original) with raised wood panels at the base in the covered first-floor patio area of the south elevation. View to the east...................................................................................83 Figure 69 Detail of the south elevation’s second story balcony (non-original alteration/addition) with rectangular pillars, metal railings and French doors. View to the northwest. ..............................................................................84 Figure 70 Easternmost portion of the southern elevation .showing the pediment at the roofline, balconette, and paired windows with wood shutters. View to the northwest.........................................................................................................84 Figure 71 Projecting bay window on the first floor of the easternmost portion of the southern elevation. View to the north. ..................................................................85 Figure 72 Overall view of the residence’s east elevation. View to the west. ........................85 Figure 73 Detail view of the east elevation’s rounded tripartite bay window with wood frames and classical surround. View to the northwest. ..............................86 Figure 74 Detail view of the east elevation’s second-story 6-light wood frame windows with wood shutters. View to the west.....................................................86 Figure 75 Non-original ancillary structure on the west side of the subject property’s lot. View to the west. .............................................................................................87 Figure 76 Detail view of the ancillary structure’s roof and slated roof. View to the south......................................................................................................................87 Figure 77 North elevation of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. The front porch may have been enclosed since the building’s original construction; the east and west porches may also be additions. View to the south.............................................................................88 Figure 78 East elevation of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. View to the east..............................................................88 Figure 79 South and west elevations of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. There is a vegetable and flower garden, also pictured. View to the west.....................................................................................89 Historic Resource Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California v ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
List of Tables
Table 1 Selected Regency Revival Residences in Beverly Hills .......................................19 Table 2 1001 N. Roxbury Drive Beverly Hills Building and Safety Department Building Permits ....................................................................................................32 Table 3 Residences Built or Sold by Carleton Lyle Burgess .............................................50 Table 4 Occupancy History of 1001 N. Roxbury Drive......................................................61 1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 1 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 NORTH ROXBURY DRIVE
Historical Resources Assessment
Executive Summary
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by Murray D. Fischer, Esq. (Client) to prepare this Historic Resources Assessment report (Report). The purpose of this Report is to evaluate the potential eligibility of the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills (City), California, on assessor parcel number (APN) 4348-023-020 (subject property) as a historical resource to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Beverly Hills (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance. ESA assessed the subject property for potential eligibility as a historical resource under the evaluation criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR), as well as for local designation as a City Historic Landmark (Landmark). The Report includes a discussion of the survey and research methods used, a brief history of the property and surrounding area, an architectural description of the subject property, a historic context to provide a framework for the evaluation, evaluation and conclusion.

The single-family residence at 1001 North Roxbury Drive was constructed in 1942 for original owner Mildred R. Naylor.1 The residence occupies Lots 1 and 2 of Block 170 on the Beverly Hills Tract. The subject property was constructed in the Regency Revival style by local Beverly Hills builder Carleton Lyle Burgess. Although Burgess was not a licensed architect, he is currently included on the City of Beverly Hills’ List of Local Master Architects.2 As a result of its investigations, ESA recommends the subject property ineligible under all of the applicable federal, state, and local criteria. The subject property was constructed at the end of the first period of development of the Beverly Hills Tract (1923 – 1950). By the time the subject property was constructed, most lots in the neighborhood had already been improved with residences and the subject property continued this pattern of development. While the neighborhood still contains historic homes, major alterations to these resources, as well as extensive contemporary redevelopment, has diminished the area’s ability to convey its earliest pattern of development. As a result, the subject property cannot represent broad patterns of history and is found ineligible under Criterion A/1.

1 Beverly Hills Department of Building, "Application for the Erection of Buildings," issued to Mildred R. Naylor, September 29, 1941.
2 List of Local Master Architects, adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission 10-14-15, Revised 7-10-19. Version

3.1. Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 2 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
The home is also not associated with significant historical personages. Research did not indicate that the original owner of the home, Mildred R. Naylor and her husband Howard Morton Naylor, were significant figures in the development of Beverly Hills. Furthermore, the couple only occupied the residence for approximately one year, as they divorced around 1943 and appeared to have moved shortly thereafter.
3 Another occupant was Adolph B. Spreckels II, the heir to the Spreckels Sugar fortune. While the Spreckels family were powerful and played a significant role in shaping many cities in California, Adolph B. Spreckels II was not involved in the family business, nor did he have a career outside the family’s business empire.4 Further, historic newspaper articles indicate that Spreckels II exhibited a pattern of violence towards his romantic partners including Kay Williams, his wife, who also occupied the subject property. Spreckels II beat Williams to the point of hospitalization, for which he was sentenced to a short jail term. 5 The
next occupant of the home was Fred Cole, an influential swimwear designer who utilized the pool and backyard of the home for fashion shows.6 While this may have been a significant use of the property, the original pool has been demolished since Cole’s occupancy and a new pool has been constructed in a different location within the backyard. Consequently, the subject property lacks the integrity to convey its association with Cole’s productive period. Subsequent owners were variously involved in prominent business endeavors, but research did not indicate that the subject property was directly associated with their productive lives. Therefore, the subject property is found to be ineligible under Criterion B/2.

The property was built by Carleton Lyle Burgess, who is currently listed on the City of Beverly Hills Local List of Master Architects. Burgess was not, however, an architect, as is documented in detail in this Report. He was not licensed as an architect, he was not a member of the American Institute of Architects, and there have been no scholarly studies of his work or publication of his work in architectural periodicals. Primary sources, such as original building permits, census information, voting registration, and historic newspapers, indicate that Burgess was a builder, contractor, and real estate developer. Burgess built homes in Beverly Hills and the greater Los Angeles area in various popular Period Revival styles. Burgess’ work did not set architectural trends in Beverley Hills; his work appears to have followed popular architectural styles and established patterns of development. Therefore, the subject property was not designed by a master architect nor did his work influence stylistic patterns of development. While the subject property is a large example of the Regency Revival style, it is not a distinctive nor particularly exceptional example. The Regency Revival style is common throughout Beverly Hills; there is a cluster of Regency Revival homes that pre-date the residence on Whittier Drive, a block south of the subject property. The home is a fair example of the style regionally, but it is not distinctive enough to meet the thresholds for state or national listing. As a result, the subject property is found to be ineligible under Criterion C/3.

3 "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor," Daily News, September 27th, 1943.; "Mary Ann Naylor Obituary," The Kerrville Daily Times, December 30, 2003.; Hugh Ralston, "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 2, 1947. 4 "Corporations: Sugar Plum," Time, June 27, 1949.
5 "Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term,” The News and Observer, January 9th, 1954. 6 Rose Apodaca, "Legacy of swimwear giant Cole runs deep," Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2007.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 3 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
The subject property is further found to be ineligible as a City Historic Landmark. In order for a property to be locally eligible, the City requires that a property meet all four of the requirements under “A” (it is at least 45 years of age; it embodies the distinctive characteristics of its style; it retains integrity from its period of significance; and it has continued historic value to the community) as well as one of the five requirements under “B” (listed on the National Register; 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; an exceptional property owned by a person of great local importance; an iconic property; and the landmark designation was initiated by the property’s owner).

The subject property meets one of the requirements under A, but it lacks substantial integrity from its period of significance, it is exceptionally large but it is only a fair example and does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a style or architectural period, and it does not have continued historic value to the community. The home has been a private residence since its construction and its only visible elevation from the public right of way is its primary north façade.

As a result, the home’s value to the community of Beverly Hills at large is minimal. No major events that affected the history of Beverly Hills occurred at the subject property. The home further does not meet any of the requirements under “B,” for the reasons discussed in the national and state eligibility summary above. As a result, the subject property does not meet the eligibility thresholds required for landmark listing by the City of Beverly Hill and is found to be ineligible.

While the property retains integrity of location and design from the public right of way, it lacks sufficient significant associations to qualify as a historical resource, and therefore, ESA recommends the subject property be assigned a California Historic Resource (“CHR”) Status Code of 6Z, noting it as ineligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or for City Landmark designation, through survey evaluation.

ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this report are as follows: 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 Appendix A.

Project Location
The subject property is located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive on the Beverly Hills Tract in the City of Beverly Hills, California as shown on Figure 1, Regional and Project Vicinity Map. The project site is improved with a two-story single-family residence with location shown in Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project Site. The subject property occupies two lots on the corner of Roxbury Drive and Lexington Road and faces Roxbury Drive to the north. The streets immediately surrounding the subject property, including Whittier Drive, Lexington Road, and Hartford Way, are residential and comprised of single-family residences, many of which are constructed in various Period Revival styles. The surrounding neighborhood also has non-historic redevelopment of large single-family residences. The nearest major thoroughfares are Sunset Boulevard to the west and the Benedict Canyon Drive to the north.

A n g e l e s N a t i o n a l F o r e s t
To p a n g a
S t a t e P a r k
Ø
Project Site
San Fernando
Valley
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
UV1
UV91
§¨¦110
Long Beach
Upper Van
Norman Lake
Middle
Lake
Chatsworth
Reservoir
Devils
Gate Res.

Flood
Control
Basin
Encino
Reservoir
Hollywood
Reservoir
Upper Stone
Canyon Res.

Silver
Lake Res.

Manhattan
Beach
Gardena
Downey
Inglewood
Bell
Pico
Rivera
Monterey
Park
West
Hollywood Alhambra
Beverly Hills
San Gabriel
Pasadena
Glendale
Los Angeles
Burbank
Santa Monica
Simi
Valley
§¨¦710
§¨¦210
§¨¦110
§¨¦105
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦405
£¤101
UV1
UV42
UV110
UV60
UV170
UV118
UV134
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100618_00_1001_N_Roxbury_Historic_Resources_Assessment\03_MXDs_Projects\03_MXDs_Projects\03_MXDs_Projects.aprx, CKeen 9/27/2021 SOURCE: ESRI, 2018; ESA, 2021 1001 N. Roxbury Historic Resources Assessment Figure 1
Regional and Property Vicinity Map
KERN

SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE

LOS ANGELES

VENTURA
SANTA

BARBARA
Area of ORANGE
Detail
N
0 4
Miles
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monovale Dr
Lexington Rd
N Whittier Dr
N Roxbury Dr
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100618_00_1001_N_Roxbury_Historic_Resources_Assessment\03_MXDs_Projects\03_MXDs_Projects\03_MXDs_Projects.aprx, CKeen 9/27/2021 SOURCE: ESRI, 2018; ESA, 2021 1001 N. Roxbury Historic Resources Assessment Figure 2
Aerial Photograph of Project Site
N
Project Site 0 100
Feet
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 6 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Methodology
This Report was 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 Appendix A. This HRA report is required by the City whenever a proposed project involves a building that might potentially be a historic resource. Moreover, this Report meets the definition of a Historic Assessment Report set forth in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32, Section 2 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.7 For the study, ESA’s architectural historians performed the tasks that follow:
 Field inspections of the subject property utilizing the survey methodology of the State OHP conducted by Margarita Jerabek-Bray and Claire Cancilla on July 19, 2021.  Photography of the subject property and associated landscape features and examination of other properties in the vicinity that exhibited potential architectural and/or historical associations.
 Site‐specific research for the subject property utilizing building permits, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Sanborn Maps), City directories, historical photographs, Online Archive of California, Calisphere, Ancestry records, the Beverly Hills Public Library, the Beverly Hills Historical Society, historical newspapers, and other published sources. Previous surveys were reviewed, and all available building permits were reviewed for alterations. Original building plans were not located.
 Research through the Beverly Hills Building & Safety Department.  Review and analysis of ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to Federal, State, and Local historic preservation, designation assessment processes, and related programs.
 Evaluation of potential historical resources based upon criteria used by the National Register, California Register, and City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Regulatory Framework
Historical resources fall within the jurisdiction of the federal, state, and local designation programs. Federal laws provide the framework for the identification, and in certain instances, protection of historical resources. Additionally, state and local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources within their communities. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (36 CFR 60), as amended, and the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5024.1, are the primary federal and state laws and regulations governing the evaluation and significance of historical resources of national, state,

7 The section defines a Historic Assessment Report as “A comprehensive report prepared by a qualified historic preservation consultant that assesses whether or not a specific property or geographical area, as the case may be, satisfies all of the requirements for designation as a landmark or historic district. The report shall include not only the requisite findings, but also all known facts and circumstances that either support or possibly refute those findings.” ESA’s report is identified as a Historic Resources Assessment.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 7 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
regional, and local importance. Descriptions of these relevant laws and regulations are presented below.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.”8 The National Register recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and/or local levels.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Four criteria for evaluation have been established to determine the significance of a resource:

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; D. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.9 Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years in age must meet one or more of the above criteria and retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) to be eligible for listing.

Under the National Register, a property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and uses over a period of time.10 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association:

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense

8 36 CFR § 60.2.
9 36 CFR § 60.4 Criteria for Evaluation. See also “Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms,” in National Register Bulletin 16, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, September 30, 1986. This bulletin contains technical information on comprehensive planning, survey of cultural resources and registration in the NRHP.
10 National Register Bulletin 15, 19.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 8 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer.11 To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess most of the aspects and depending upon its significance, retention of specific aspects of integrity may be paramount for a property to convey its significance.12 Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular

11 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44-45, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, accessed October 28, 2021. 12 The National Register defines a property as an “area of land containing a single historic resource or a group of resources, and constituting a single entry in the National Register of Historic Places.” A “Historic Property” is Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 9 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
property requires knowing why, where and when a property is significant.13 For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (“National Register Bulletin 15”) explains, “a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s).”14 In assessing the integrity of properties that are considered significant under National Register Criterion C, National Register Bulletin 15 states, “a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.”15
State Register and Eligibility Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources
The OHP, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level.

The OHP also carries out the duties as set forth in the PRC and maintains the HRI and the California Register. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.

Also implemented at the state level, CEQA requires projects to identify any substantial adverse impacts which may affect the significance of identified historical resources.

The California Register was created by Assembly Bill 2881 which was signed into law on September 27, 1992. The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”16 The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria.17

defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object at the time it attained historic significance.” Glossary of National Register Terms,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/nrb16a_Appendix_IV.htm, accessed June 1, 2013. 13 National Register Bulletin 15, 44.
14 “A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.” Ibid, p. 46. 15 “A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.” Ibid. 16 PRC Section 5024.1(a).
17 PRC Section 5024.1(b).

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 10 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
 California properties listed on the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register; 18
 California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward;  Those California Points of Historical Interest (“PHI”) that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.19
 Other resources which may be nominated to the California Register include:
 Individual historical resources;
 Historical resources contributing to historic districts;  Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys with significance ratings of Category 1 through 5;
 Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an HPOZ.20
To be eligible for the California Register, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Additionally, a historical resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reasons for its significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of seven aspects of integrity similar to the National Register (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association).

Also like the National Register, it must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A

18 PRC Section 5024.1(d).
19 Ibid.
20 PRC Section 5024.1(e)
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 11 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.21
California Historical Resources Status Codes
The California State OHP developed National Register Status Codes in 1975 as a standardized system for classifying historical resources in the state’s Historic Resources Inventory. In 2003 these codes were revised to reflect the application of California Register and local criteria and the name was changed to California Historical Resource (CHR) Status Codes. CHR Status codes consist of three digits and are assigned to properties or historic districts through a survey process and as a result of varying regulatory processes. The first digit ranges from 1-7. Code categories 1- 5 reflect properties determined eligible for designation according to the criteria established for the National Register, California Register and local government criteria for significance. Code categories 6-7 generally identify properties that do not meet established criteria for significance, have not been evaluated, or need to be reevaluated. The code categories are as follows:

1. Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR);

2. Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register;

3. Appears eligible for National Register or the California Register through survey evaluation;

4. Appears eligible for the National Register or the California Register through other evaluation (only applies to Master List – State Owned Properties – PRC §5024);

5. Properties recognized as historically significant by local government;

6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified; and

7. Not evaluated for the National Register or California Register or needs re‐evaluation.

The second digit of the CHR Status Code is a letter code indicating whether the resource is separately eligible (S), eligible as part of a district (D), or both (B). The third digit is a number that is used to further specify significance and refine the relationship of the property to the National Register and/or California Register. Under this evaluation system, categories 1 through 4 pertain to various levels of National Register and California Register eligibility. Locally eligible resources are given a rating code level 5. Properties found ineligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or for designation under a local ordinance are given an evaluation Status Code of 6. Properties given an evaluation Status Code of 6Z are “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey evaluation.” City Level
City of Beverly Hills
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015) codified in the Municipal Code Title 10 Chapter 3 Article 32 Historic Preservation, authorizes the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) to recommend the nomination of properties as City landmarks to

21 Codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4852(c) which can be accessed on the internet at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 12 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
the City Council. The Council may designate City landmarks and historic districts by the procedures outlined in the ordinance. The Preservation Ordinance also establishes the evaluation criteria and process for designating properties as City landmarks. Under the City’s criteria, a property must be more than 45 years old, unless it possesses exceptional significance; retain sufficient historical integrity to physically illustrate its significance; and satisfy the significance criteria.

To be eligible for City designation as a historic landmark, properties must satisfy the following criteria:

A. A Landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements:
 It is at least 45 years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;  It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;  It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and  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 Paragraph A above, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
 It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places;  It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
 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 paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;  It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
 It is an iconic property; or
 The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.22
Environmental Setting
Historic Contexts
The historic context developed below presents the background necessary to evaluate the historical and architectural significance of subject property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, including the history of construction and alterations, occupancy history, and information on the architect associated with the residence. The recommended period of significance associated with subject property is 1942, the original date of construction of the residence. ESA evaluated the subject property as an individual resource under the historical and architectural themes, Development of

22 BMC 10-3-3212: Landmark Designation Criteria
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 13 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Beverly Hills and Establishment of the Movie Colony (1920-1945), the Beverly Hills Tract (1923 - 1950) and Regency Revival Style (1930-1950). The property was also evaluated as an example of the work of Carleton Lyle Burgess, a builder, contractor, and real estate developer who is currently included on the City of Beverly Hills’ List of Local Master Architects, but does not appear to qualify as a master architect based upon the documentation presented in this Report.

Development of Beverly Hills, 1822-198023
Early Settlement and Development (1822-1919)
Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas was originally claimed by Mexican settlers Maria Rita Valdez and her husband Vicente Valdez around 1822. Aptly named The Ranch of the Gathering of the Waters, the swamps or “cienegas” that characterize the natural landscape were 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 cattle ranch. In 1852, after suffering a Native American attack, 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 as well as a founder of the California citrus and viticulture industries. Hancock, a Civil War veteran, surveyed and subsequently acquired large tracts around the La Brea Tar Pits. His family owned Rancho La Brea, which is located to the east of Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas.

The Rancho period continued through 1906. The ranch lands changed hands several times after Hancock sold his interests in 1862 to William Workman, a railroad magnate. Vegetable farming, sheep herding, bee keeping and raising of walnut trees were the primary agricultural activities within the rancho lands during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Several attempts at subdividing and establishing communities on the ranch lands were attempted during the 1860s and 1880s but ended in failure.

The Rodeo Land and Water Company and Early Development of the City of Beverly Hills (1906-1920)
The next activities on the ranch centered on a syndicate of oil investors, known as the Amalgamated Oil Company; however, attempts to exploit the deeply buried oil reserves were unsuccessful and once again the ranch owners focused their hopes on subdividing the Beverly Hills area as a real estate development. The Amalgamated Oil Company 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, located between 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 notable California park planner, Wilbur F. Cook, Jr., to plan the new community. Cook had worked with landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted before moving to Oakland in 1905 to establish his own firm. Comprised of “Beverly” in the commercial triangle

23 PCR Services Corporation, Historic Resources Survey Report: City of Beverly Hills, City of Beverly Hills, 2004, 7- 8 and 9-11.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 14 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
between Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards and “Beverly Hills” north of Santa Monica Boulevard, the new community was one of the earliest planned communities in Southern California. Horticulturist John J. Reeves was retained to develop the master tree planting program. He 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.

Relatively far from the center of downtown Los Angeles, the Rodeo Land and Water Company’s development proved sluggish. Like other boom towns at the turn-of-the-century, Beverly Hills needed a large resort hotel to give it prominence and establish its reputation. In 1911, the Rodeo Land and Water Company, in conjunction with Margaret J. Anderson, commissioned talented architect Elmer Grey to design the Beverly Hills Hotel. In 1914, concern over establishment of a secure water system and the desire to improve the local school system prompted incorporation of City of Beverly Hills. The original boundaries of the City were much the same as they are today, except for the area south of Wilshire Boulevard, annexed in 1915, and the Trousdale Estates, annexed in 1955. Most of the City was open land at the time of incorporation, with development scattered around Canon Drive, Beverly Drive, Crescent Drive, and the downtown triangle.

The architecture of Beverly Hills in the years following the City’s founding was dominated by the Craftsman, Mission Revival, and Period Revival styles (Tudor, Georgian, and Beaux-Arts Classicism). Burton Green’s residence, which was located on the northwest corner of Lexington Road and Oxford Way, was completed in 1914 in the Tudor Revival style. The Max Whittier house (1916), formerly at the northwest corner of Alpine Drive and Sunset Boulevard and now demolished, was among the earliest versions of an Italian Renaissance Villa in the City.

Development of Beverly Hills and Establishment of the Movie Colony (1920- 1945)
24 In 1920, the City of Beverly Hills was a largely vacant area retaining vestiges of its rural past, and a city in transition. During the 1920s, Beverly Hills became a haven for movie stars who joined magnates such as Max Whittier and Burton Green. While much of the City’s architecture from the inter-war period is indistinguishable from that of other affluent neighborhoods in other California communities, it was during this period that a unique architectural identity emerged in Beverly Hills in connection with the Movie Colony. Exhibiting a definite element of selfexpression and theatricality, houses such as Pickfair, Dias Dorados, and Greenacres established a standard quickly followed in varying degrees of extravagance by silent film stars Charles Chaplin, Tom Mix, Buster Keaton, Gloria Swanson and Pola Negri. The influence of set design was particularly apparent in the Spadena House, designed by Henry Oliver in 1921 as a movie set and office, and later moved to its present location at Carmelita Avenue and Walden Drive.

Prominent architects such as Gordon Kaufmann, Wallace Neff, and Robert Farquhar provided architectural villas for movie moguls and producers. Master architect Paul R. Williams designed and remodeled approximately 300 residences in Beverly Hills in variants of the Period Revival style.

24 PCR Services Corporation, Historic Resources Survey Report: City of Beverly Hills, City of Beverly Hills, 2004, 11-15.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 15 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
The 1920s was a highly eclectic and architecturally exuberant period in Beverly Hills. By the end of the decade, development of the downtown area had been completed and local residential development had risen in response to an increase in population from 700 people in 1920 to 12,000 in 1926. During the ensuing decade, the architectural character of Beverly Hills as we know it today was established. Commercial development in the downtown core and multi-family development in the area south of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards completed the transformation of the City from a semi-rural into an urban environment. Stylistically, residential architecture ranged from the Spanish Colonial Revival and Period Revival styles (Tudor, French, Georgian, Colonial, and Mediterranean) through Art Deco and Streamline Moderne.

During the mid-1930s, Beverly Hills became one of the areas of Southern California most closely identified with the Hollywood Regency style, a marriage between the elegance of early nineteenth century idioms and sophisticated Moderne stylized forms. During the 1940s, Mansard roofs became popular with decorators who admired the work of John Woolf at the Chisolm (520 N.

Beverly Drive) and Pendleton (1032 N. Beverly Drive) houses.25 Regency Revival Style (1925-1950)
The Regency Revival style is a variation of the Neoclassical Revival style, which consists of five primary subtypes in residential architecture in the United States and was prevalent for domestic architecture from about 1900 until the 1950s.26 The style came to popularity in the United States primarily through the World’s Columbia Exposition, held in Chicago in 1893 which mandated a classical theme. In the later phase of the Neoclassical Revival style’s popularity, from about 1925 to 1950, iterations tended to be less formal and more eclectic with Georgian, Federal, and Greek Revival traditions becoming “fused into the eclectic Neoclassical style.”27 Neoclassical Revival buildings are often characterized by full-height porch with roof supported by classical columns, typically with Ionic or Corinthian capitals; symmetrical elevations with the door at the central boxed eaves with moderate overhang often with decorative dentils; pediments; and rectangular windows.28
The Regency Revival style references the architecture of Britain in the early 19th century, specifically 1811 to 1830. In this period, the Prince of Wales (later King George IV) served as Prince Regent while his father, King George III, was incapacitated due to illness. The Regency Revival style also borrows stylistic elements from the Federal Style, Georgian Style, and French Empire style.29 In the greater Los Angeles area, the Regency Revival style is most commonly, although not exclusively, applied to residential architecture. The style first emerged in Southern

25 Ibid.
26 Virginia McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York: Alfred A. Knope, 2013), 435 and 439. 27 Ibid, 446.
28 Ibid, 435.
29 Christy McAvoy, "Historic Cultural Monument Nomination: Hunt House," Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources, January 14, 2014.; Heather Goers and Christine Lazzaretto, "HistoricCultural Monument Application for the Shepard Residence," Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources, November 3, 2016.; Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, "Regency Revival, 1935-1950,” https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historic-buildings/architectural-styleguide/regency-revival.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 16 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
California around 1930 and largely fell out of favor by 1950.30 The Regency Revival style shares the forms of Neoclassical Revival buildings but distinguishes itself through its characteristic utilization of simple, unornamented surfaces that reflect the influence of the Modern movement.31 The Regency Revival style was adopted early on by master Los Angeles architect Paul Revere Williams (1894-1980). Williams had been trained in traditional forms of architecture in the 1920s, but became increasingly influenced by the flourishing modern era in the 1940s.32 William’s utilization of classic Regency elements on his residential projects are visible in two Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monuments: the Hunt House at 7 Oakmont Drive, Los Angeles (1940; HCM #1063) and the Shepherd Residence located at 626 North Siena Way, Bel Air (Figure 3; 1938, HCM #1138).33
This style simplified traditional ornament to achieve a “sleek modernity within the bounds of traditional imagery,” according to architectural historian Alan Hess.34 Other Los Angeles-area architects who helped popularize the Regency Revival style include George Vernon Russell, Douglas Honnold, and John Woolf. These architects designed homes that combined traditional forms and ornament with modern lines. Due to their classical training, these architects “carried a sure sense of proportion, but they also found ways to simplify and streamline their architecture in the emerging spirit of modernity.”35
The Regency Revival style appears frequently in residential architecture in Beverly Hills.

Selected examples of Regency Revival homes are documented below in Table 1. These resources were identified the Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, a citywide property survey adopted by the City in 1986, and its 2004 update. Additional sources used to identify resources include City documents, such as landmark nominations, newspaper articles, and Google Maps. The style was also applied to commercial buildings in the city, however, notably along the Wilshire commercial corridor.36 These commercial structures, including the building at 9634 Wilshire Boulevard (Figure 4; extant; 1946; originally I. Magnin and Company) typically utilized a toneddown approach to the style that emphasized blank surfaces and limited ornamentation.37 In Beverly Hills, the Regency Revival style is sometimes interchangeably referred to as Hollywood Regency, although many Hollywood Regency homes tend to be more ornamental and dramatic than more classically-influenced examples of the style, like the subject property. The Hollywood Regency style exhibits the influence of the Moderne style as well as the exaggerated qualities of Hollywood film sets.38 Examples of this more exuberant application of the style include residences built by Beverly hills master architect John Elgin Woolf (1908-1980) at 1033

30 McAvoy, “Hunt House HCM.”
31 Ibid; Goers and Lazzaretto, “Shepard Residence HCM.” 32 Alan Hess, Forgotten Modern: California Houses 1940-1970, (Gibbs Smith: Salt Lake City, 2007), 36. 33 McAvoy, “Hunt House HCM.”; Goers and Lazzaretto, “Shepard Residence HCM.” 34 Hess, Forgotten Modern, 36.
35 Ibid.
36 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills (1985-1986), 71.
37 Ibid, 74.
38 McAvoy, “Hunt House HCM.”; Goers and Lazzaretto, “Shepard Residence HCM.” Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 17 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Woodland Drive (Figure 5; 1941; extant; designated a City Historic Landmark) and 805 Hillcrest Road (Figure 6; 1954; eligible for City Historic Landmark status). Toned down versions of the Hollywood Regency style are also found in Beverly Hills, including the residence at 520 North Beverly Drive (Figure 7; 1941; extant).

The Regency Revival style can be eclectic when applied to buildings in the Los Angeles area, in part because it draws on the influences of several different, but interrelated, styles. Elements of the Regency Revival style can be applied to a wide variety of different building typologies, including large estates like the subject property. The character-defining features of the style reflect its sundry origins. Character defining features include: hipped roofs; largely blank primary facades with minimal ornamentation; eccentrically detailed columns and distinctive ornamentation juxtaposed against large expansions of blank wall; exterior facades veneered with smooth plaster, horizontal wood siding, and / or masonry veneer; double-hung divided light wood sash windows, sometimes with shutters; bay windows; balconettes with iron railings; and a pediment entrance portico with paneled wood entrance door, sidelights, transom light, and classical surround.
39 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: HistoricPlaces LA Figure 3
The Shepard Residence, designed by Paul Revere Williams in 1938 located at 626 North Siena Way, Bel-Air, Los Angeles.

39 Character defining features drawn from several sources, including: Goers and Lazzaretto, “Shepard Residence HCM,” 12.; McAvoy, “Hunt House HCM.”; Hess, Forgotten Modernity, 36; McAlester, A Field Guide, 435.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 18 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles Public Library Figure 4
1978 photograph of the commercial property built in 1946 at 9634 Wilshire, Beverly Hills.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Cameron Kiszla, "Beverly Hills
Designates Evans House as
Historic," Beverly Press,
February 4, 2021.

Figure 5
Hollywood Regency residence 1033 Woodland Drive, Beverly Hills, designed by John Elgin Woolf in 1941.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 19 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Coldwell Banker Figure 6
Hollywood Regency residence 805 Hillcrest Road, Beverly Hills, designed by John Elgin Woolf in 1954.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Google Maps Figure 7
Hollywood Regency residence at 520 N. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, built in 1941.

TABLE 1

SELECTED REGENCY REVIVAL RESIDENCES IN BEVERLY HILLS
Year Address Image Notes
1937 915 North Whittier Drive Source: Google Maps
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 20 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Year Address Image Notes
1937 1021 Ridgedale Drive Source: Google Maps
1937 918 Whittier Drive Source: Google Maps
1939 Robert J. Fulton
Residence
Architect: Paul Revere Williams
Source: Paul Revere Williams Project
1937 1018 Ridgedale Drive Source: Google Maps
1940 444 Smithwood Dr. Noted as an example of the Regency Revival style in the 2004 update to Beverly Hills’
Historic Resources Inventory.

Source: Google Maps
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 21 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Year Address Image Notes
1941 “J.B. Hurd Residence” at
626 North Camden Drive
Architect: Ray P.Stahmann (master
architect)
Source: Hilton Hyland
Additional information:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.
php?view_id=49&clip_id=6264&meta_id=37
7360; Hollywood Regency
1926 624 N Alpine Drive Source: Google maps
1935 9570 Virginia Place Source: Google Maps
Architect: Gerard Colcord (master architect)
Additional Information:
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.
php?view_id=&event_id=2924&meta_id=307
257
1934 910 N Roxbury Source: Google Maps
Development, Construction, and Occupancy History
Beverly Hills Tract Development (1923 – 1950)
The subject property is located on lots 1 and 2 on block 170 within the Beverly Hills Tract, which was first laid out in 1923. The tract has remained residential since its subdivision, having first been developed with large, single-family homes in various Period Revival styles popular at the time of its initial development. More recently, parcels within the tract have been redeveloped with Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 22 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
contemporary single-family residences and many historic homes have also been substantially altered. The tract developed most rapidly between approximately 1926 and 1950. By 1950 nearly all lots within the tract had been developed with single-family residences. The full tract map is included in Appendix B.

The first available Sanborn map from 1922 (Figure 8) shows the area was mostly unmapped at that time, consistent with the tract being subdivided a year later in 1923. The next Sanborn map, from 1926 (Figure 9) shows that the majority of the tract’s lots remained undeveloped; only 9 of the lots had been improved with residences. A historic photograph of the area from 1928 taken at the corner of North Roxbury Drive and Sunset Boulevard, approximately 0.20 miles from the subject property, portrays the area in this period – there are scattered residences, but the majority of the area remained undeveloped open land (Figure 10).

Ten years later, in 1938, an aerial photograph shows that many of the lots directly surrounding the subject property had been developed (Figure 11). The subject property itself remained undeveloped, as did a handful of adjacent lots. The vast majority of lots on Roxbury Drive, however, had been improved with residences by 1938. Only three lots were developed on Whitter Drive, located directly to the south of the subject property at this time.

Densification of the neighborhood through single-family development continued in the next ten years. By 1948, an aerial photograph (Figure 12) shows that the subject property had been constructed and all but two lots on Roxbury Drive had also been improved with single-family residences. Three more lots were developed on Whitter by this time, although the majority of lots remained undeveloped.

The 1950 Sanborn map of the area shows that all the lots immediately surrounding the subject property had been developed (Figure 13). This is confirmed by a 1953 aerial photograph showing the density of the neighborhood (Figure 14). Roxbury Drive was fully developed by this time and Whittier only had a handful of open lots. An aerial photograph from 1964 (Figure 15) and the Sanborn map from 1969 (Figure 16) show that while there were still a few scattered undeveloped lots, nearly all had been improved with residences. During this period, the character of the tract remained consistently residential. Aerial photographs from 1977 (Figure 17), 1981 (Figure 18), and 1994 (Figure 19) show no major changes in the character of the tract, save for some demolition of older homes in favor of new construction. This trend continued into the twenty-first century, with the tract remaining residential, albeit with the increased prevalence of large, contemporary single-family residential redevelopment, visible in aerial photographs from 2002 (Figure 20), 2009 (Figure 21), and 2016 (Figure 22). Some of these new residences include the residences at 1019 (built in 2007) and 1021 (built in 2015) North Roxbury Drive, among others.
40 Today, the area remains residential with a mix of historic single-family homes and more recently constructed single-family homes.

40 Dates of construction for these residences comes from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office online portal.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 23 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company,
1922, Volume 1 Sheet 2
from EDR 2021
Figure 8
1922 Sanborn map, future location of the subject property outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1926,
Volume 21 Sheet 2193 from
EDR 2021
Figure 9
1926 Sanborn map, future location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 24 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: University of Southern
California Online Archives Figure 10
Corner of North Roxbury Drive and Sunset Boulevard, approximately

0.20 miles from the subject property, 1928.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture from EDR 2021 Figure 11
1938 aerial photo, future location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 25 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 12
1948 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1950,
Volume 21 Sheet 2193 from
EDR 2021
Figure 13
1950 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 26 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture form EDR 2021 Figure 14
1953 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 15
1964 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 27 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1969,
Volume 21 Sheet 2193 from
EDR 2021
Figure 16
1969 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: EDR Proprietary Brewster
Pacific from EDR 2021 Figure 17
1977 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 28 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: EDR Proprietary Brewster
Pacific from EDR 2021 Figure 18
1981 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 19
1994 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 29 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture form EDR 2021 Figure 20
2002 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture form EDR 2021 Figure 21
2009 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 30 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture form EDR 2021 Figure 22
2016 aerial photo, location of the subject property outlined in red.

Construction History
A construction history of the subject property was developed using building permits on file with the City’s Building and Safety department, aerial photographs, and Sanborn maps. Results are summarized in Table 2, below. Building permits are included in Appendix C.1.

The subject property at 1001 N. Roxbury Drive was built for $50,000 in 1941 for Mildred R.

Naylor. The original building permit, issued on September 29, 1941, lists Carleton Burgess as the contractor. He is not listed as the architect – as that section is blank on the permit. The permit describes the proposed home as a 2-story 8,700 square-foot, 12-room, single-family residence plus garage constructed with a concrete foundation. The exterior was clad with stucco and brick veneer; the chimney was constructed of brick; and the home’s roof was clad with composite shingles.

In October 1941, another permit was issued for the construction of a 4-room, 1-story, wood-frame bath house that remains extant at the rear of the property’s lot. This work was valued at $4,000 on the permit and Carleton Burgess was listed as the contractor. Two months later, in November 1941, another permit was issued to Mildred Naylor, owner, for the construction of a swimming pool, valued at $3,000. Aerial photographs and Sanborn maps indicate that the original pool was located at the south rear of the lot, directly in front of the extant pool house’s north-facing elevation (Figures 23 and 24).

Aerial photographs and Sanborn maps from 1948 to 1969 (Figures 23 - 26) show that the subject residence’s overall footprint and site plan remained consistent, although building permits indicate Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 31 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
that some alterations occurred on the property in this period. In 1964, for example, a permit was issued to owner Joe Mitchell for a $30,000 room addition and unspecified interior alterations. The architect of this alteration was Daniel Dworsky and Associates. Two permits from 1965 and 1970 were also issued to Joe Mitchell for the erection of temporary party tents, likely for events hosted at the subject property.

The footprint of the home and its south rear configuration did not change between 1977 (Figure 27) and 1981 (Figure 28). In 1980, a permit was issued to Joe Mitchell for the installation of eight poles plus light fixtures for the property’s tennis court, although the home’s tennis court does not appear in the aerial photograph of the subject property from 1981 (previously referenced Figure 18).

However, many changes to the subject property occurred after it was purchased by Allen Kohl in the 1985. In 1986, several permits were issued that resulted in changes to the property’s interior and to the rear configuration of the lot. Two permits were issued for work on the house on the same day in June 1986. One was for a $90,000 room addition and alteration of the maid’s room, completed by architect Michael Levey for owner Allen D. Kohl. The other permit, issued on the same day, was for the $35,000 construction of a cabana on the property’s grounds (extant), also designed by architect Michael Levey. Also in 1986, a permit was issued to remove the roofing and install cedar treated shingles.

A permit for a new tennis court, valued at $3,000,000 was issued in February 1987. An aerial photograph confirms that the tennis court had been constructed by 1989 (Figure 29). This court is still extant on the subject property’s lot today. The tennis court was one of several changes in the configuration of the property’s grounds in the 1980s. In May 1987, a permit was issued to change the location of the swimming pool. In July 1987, another permit was issued to demolish the property’s original 25’ x 60’ pool and construct a new swimming pool. Aerial photographs from 1981 (previously referenced Figure 28) show the pool in its original position but aerial photos from 1989 (previously referenced Figure 29) show that the pool had moved to the east side of the subject property’s lot. In September 1987, a permit was issued to install concrete footing and slab for the creation of a view and observation area.

The pool constructed on the east side of the lot in 1987 remained for three years, until a permit valued at $2,500,000 was issued in 1990 to demolish the existing pool and construct a new pool that was 90% of the size of the previous pool in approximately the same location. This new pool is the one that is currently extant on the west side of the subject property’s lot today. Comparison of the 1994 aerial photograph (Figure 30) with a 1989 photo verifies that the pool present in 1989 (previously referenced Figure 29) was no longer extant and the currently existing pool configuration is consistent with the new pool that was built in 1990 and has been present on the property since then.

Also in 1990, a permit was issued to repair masonry on a chimney on the rear of the house, work that was valued at $600,000. The next permit on record is from 1991, for the construction of a garden trellis and covered patio at the tennis court. Three years later, in 1994, a permit was issued to repair the masonry on the chimney at the rear of the house that was damaged during an Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 32 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
earthquake and to replace the brick veneer on the south side of the house. The pool was replastered in 2002 and the roof shingles of the home and accessory structures at the rear were replaced with wood shingles and light weight slate in 2005. Also in 2005, a permit was issued for the soft demolition of non-structural elements of the main house in preparation for an interior remodel. The architect for this work was Rios Clementi Hale Studios.

In 2006, the home was occupied by David Bohnett and a permit was issued for an interior remodel. Work included reinforcing the existing roof and exterior walls and adding two windows and a new structural slab. A new pedestrian gate was added to the existing brick wall in the side yard in 2007 and a new iron balcony was added on the second floor the same year. Four years later, in 2011, the new owners of the home, Lisa and Joshua Greer, were issued a permit valued at $100,000 to remodel the entire two-story interior of the property.

Aerial photographs from 2009 (Figure 31) and 2016 (Figure 32) show that the subject property’s configuration and footprint had not substantially changed between 2009 and 2016, although comparison between aerial photographs from 2009 and 2016 indicate pool house may have been enlarged in this period with the east and west porches being later additions. A comparison of these aerial photographs with earlier photographs and Sanborn maps further indicate that the front porch of the pool house may have been enclosed since its original construction and, consequently, the French doors present on the north elevation of the pool house may be non-original.

TABLE 2
1001 N. ROXBURY DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMITS41 Issued Location
Permit/Assessor
Record Owner
Contractor (C) or
Architect (A)
Engineer (E)
Valuation
($) Description
9/29/1941 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
18705 Mildred R.

Naylor
Carleton L.

Burgess (C)
$50,000 Permit to
construct a 2-
story 8,700
square-feet 12-
room single-family
residence plus
garage. Exterior
walls clad in brick
veneer and
stucco with a
shingle roof
10/5/1941 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
18812 Mildred R.

Naylor
C. L. Burgess (C) $4,000 Construct a 4-
room 1-story
wood frame bath
house
11/14/1941 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
18789 Mr. and Mrs. D.

Naylor
American Pool
Corporation (C)
$3,000 Construct a
swimming pool
1/23/1964 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
640741 Joe Mitchell Daniel Dworsky
and Associates (A);
Reiss and Brown
(E); H. McDonald
and R. Earl Inc. (C)
$30,000 Room addition
and alterations

41 Documentation for all permits in this table can be found in Appendix C of this report.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 33 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Issued Location
Permit/Assessor
Record Owner
Contractor (C) or
Architect (A)
Engineer (E)
Valuation
($) Description
10/8//1965 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
650924 Joe Mitchell Abbey Rents (C) $770 Erect a party tent 9/4//1970 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
700821 Joe Mitchell Kropnick (C) $500 60' x 100' tent for a party
11/3/1980 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
801077 Joseph Mitchell Valley Flood Lite
Services (C)
$7,000 Tennis court lights
- 8 poles and 8
fixtures
6/6/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
860843 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levey (C) $90,000 Room addition and remodel of
maid's room
6/6/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
861247 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levey (A,
C); David C. Weiss
(E)
$35,000 Pool Cabana
7/8/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
8861030 Allen Kohl Michael Levy (A);
Owen Billings &
Associates (C)
$25,000 Remove existing
roof and install #1
cedar treated
shingles
7/23/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
861132 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levey (C);
John B. Ferguson
(E)
$2,000 Demolish 25 x 60
swimming pool
7/24/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
861131 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levey (C) $24,000 Construct a swimming Pool
8/4/1986 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
861185 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levey (C) $40,000 Remodel - North bedroom on
second floor
2/6/1987 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
88003266 Allen D. Kohl None listed $3,000,000 Tennis court 5/11/1987 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
87002206 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levy (C);
K Air Conditioning
(C); Enlightening
Electric (C);
Pageant Outdoor
Lighting Equipment
(C); Honeywell
Protection Services
(C); M & S
Plumbing (C)
$25,000 Change location
of swimming pool
9/08/1987 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
87004450 Allen D. Kohl Michael Levy (C);
Flores Cement (C)
$15,000 Footing and slab
for view and
observation areas
(another permit
changed valuation
for this work to
$1,500,000 in
1987)
1/24/1990 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
94000189 None listed None listed $600,000 Repair masonry chimney on rear
of house
9/21/1990 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
90004513 None listed None listed None listed Remove existing pool and compact
to 90%
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 34 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Issued Location
Permit/Assessor
Record Owner
Contractor (C) or
Architect (A)
Engineer (E)
Valuation
($) Description
10/1/1990 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
90004643 None listed None listed $2,500,000 New swimming pool
2/26/1991 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
91000778 Mr. and Mrs.

Kohl
Statice Landscape $22,000 Garden trellis and
covered patio at
tennis court
1/24/1994 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
94000189 Allen D. Kohl Lee Stucker
Construction (C)
$6,000 Repair masonry
chimney on rear
of house. Replace
brick veneer on
south side of
house. Patch
chimney at front
of house due to
earthquake
7/26/2002 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0208390 Allen D. Kohl Monitor Pool
Company (C)
$3,500 Re-plaster pool
9/13/2005 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0546324 None listed Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A)
$45,000 Soft demo for
main residence
(non-structural).

Main house –
interior remodel
10/2/2005 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0551931 Allen D. Kohl Folger Roofing (C) $20,420 Re-Roof accessory
structure. T/O
wood shingles,
install 5/8" CDX
plywood, install
light weight slate
to manufacture
specifications
10/3/2005 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0551923 Allen D. Kohl Folger Roofing (C) $184,000 Re-roof main house. T/O Wood
shingles, install
5/8" CDX
plywood, install
light weight slate
10/5/2005 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0532498 David Bohnett Reiss Brown
Ekmeki (E)
$800,000 Main House -
interior remodel.

Reduction of area
by 213 sq. No
change in
footprint and
addition of 117 sq
ft. (completed
2007)
4/1/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0551937 Allen D. Kohl Folger Roofing (C) $24,620 Re-roof tennis building. T/O
wood shingles,
install 5/8” CDS
plywood, install
light weight slate
to manufacture
specifications
4/3/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0552664 David Bohnett Andrew Insurance
(C)
$3,500 Demolition of
privacy wall in
side yard
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 35 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Issued Location
Permit/Assessor
Record Owner
Contractor (C) or
Architect (A)
Engineer (E)
Valuation
($) Description
5/20/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0561448 David Bohnett Andrew Insurance
(C)
New block wall +/-
5’ high, 25 linear
feet to enclose
patio
5/23/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A); Reiss
Brown (E)
$45,000 Main house -
interior remodel.

Reinforce existing
roof and exterior
walls (91' on 2nd
floor and 138' on
1st floor), add 2
windows and new
structural slab
6/4/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
94000189 Gregor Bohnett Key Environmental
(C)
$1,500 Remove of
transite and ducts
in pipe chase
7/17/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0602328 David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A)
$7,000 Add California
framed roof over
new entry portico
and add 40 sq
feet to 1st floor
breakfast room
7/23/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0603384 David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A)
$20,000 Construct 4
chimneys
11/19/2006 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0621470 David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A)
$45,000 Reinforce existing
roof and exterior
walls (91’ on 2nd
floor and 138’ on
1 st floor), add two
windows and new
structural slab
3/07/2007 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0644152 David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A); Reiss
Brown Emeki (E)
$2,000 New iron balcony
on (E) second
floor
3/20/2007 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS0647367 David Bohnett Rios Clementi Hale
Studios (A); Reiss
Brown Emeki (E)
$2,000 New pedestrian
gate in existing
brick wall in side
yard
6/16/2011 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS1109011 Lisa and
Joshua Greer
Kenneth E. Niver
(E); John Dunagan
(C); Mark Rios (A)
$100,000 Minor interior
remodel of entire
2-story single
family residence.
12/8/2015 1001 North
Roxbury
Drive
BS1502719 None listed Vincent Gormally
(A); Fort Hill
Construction (C)
$15,000 New emergency
generator and
concrete pad
(front yard paving)
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 36 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 23
Excerpt of 1948 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1950,
Volume 21 Sheet 2193 from
EDR 2021
Figure 24
Excerpt of 1950 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 37 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture from EDR Figure 25
Excerpt of 1953 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1969,
Volume 21, Sheet 2193 from
EDR 2021
Figure 26
Excerpt of 1969 Sanborn map, subject property outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 38 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: EDR Proprietary Brewster
Pacific from EDR 2021 Figure 27
Excerpt of 1977 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: EDR Proprietary Brewster
Pacific from EDR 2021 Figure 28
Excerpt of 1981 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 39 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 29
Excerpt of 1989 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Geological
Survey from EDR 2021 Figure 30
Excerpt of 1994 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 40 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture from EDR 2021 Figure 31
Excerpt of 2009 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: United States Department of
Agriculture from EDR 2021 Figure 32
Excerpt of 2016 aerial photograph of the subject property, outlined in red.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 41 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Carleton Lyle Burgess, Builder
The builder of the subject property was Carleton Lyle Burgess (1900 – 1994).42 Burgess was born in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1900 and graduated from Ripon High School 1919.43 After high school, Carleton attended Stanford University, graduating in 1922.44 Burgess’ obituary also notes that he attended Amherst University.45 He married Ina Burgess in 1922 (née Copeland; born c. 1901).46 The couple had two children: Betty Jean Burgess (born 1925) and Robert Burgess (born 1928). In 1930, the family lived in Beverly Hills on South Peck Drive.47 The Burgess family were featured in the social pages of Los Angeles area newspapers in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1938, for example, the Los Angeles Times published a short column about two luncheons Ina Burgess hosted at their Beverly Hills home.
48 By 1940, the family lived at 1724 Chevy Chase Drive in Beverly Hills, a residence constructed by Burgess.
49 During World War II, Burgess served in the Army Corps of Engineers.50 Sometime prior to 1945, Burgess and Ina divorced and Burgess re-married in 1945 to a woman named Katherine Ann Burgess. The couple divorced the same year.51 Carleton Burgess remarried in 1952; his third wife’s name was Barbara and the couple remained married until Burgess’ death in 1994.52 Burgess’ obituary described him as a "prominent builder of custom homes and commercial property in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, and the Pacific Palisades. " 53 According to the obituary, Burgess’ clients included Jerome Kern, Jack Benny, George Burns and Gracie Allen, George Raft, Gene Raymond, Lucille Ball, and Alfred Hitchcock.54 Burgess as Builder
Although Burgess is listed on the City of Beverly Hills’ List of Local Master Architects, his inclusion on the list appears to be incorrect. The City of Beverly Hills defines a Master Architect as "an architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual

42 Beverly Hills Department of Building, "Application for the Erection of Buildings," issued to Mildred R. Naylor, September 29, 1941.; "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994.; Ancestry.com.

California, U.S., Death Index, 1940-1997 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000.
43 Ripon High School, The Tiger Yearbook, published by the class of 1919, Ripon, Wisconsin: 1919, https://riponlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/RHS1919c.pdf, 11. "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994.
44 "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994.; Stanford University, Alumni Directory and Ten-Year Book, Volume 4, 1932, 142 (this directory does not state what field Burgess studied). 45 "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994. 46 Ancestry.com, Los Angeles, California Marriage Records, 1921-1923. 47 1930 United States Federal Census. Ancestry.com [database on-line]. 48 "Mrs. Carleton Burgess Plans Two Luncheons," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1938. 49 1940 United States Federal Census, Ancestry.com. [database on-line].; "Residence to be Built," Los Angeles Times, August 18, 1935.
50 "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994. 51 "Wife Divorces Building Contractor," Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1948. 52 Los Angeles, California Marriage Records, 1950-1952, Ancestry.com [database on-line]. 53 "Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary," Los Angeles Times, January 15th, 1994. 54 Ibid.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 42 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
genius influenced his or her age."55 Burgess was not a registered architect, but a builder, contractor and real estate developer. Burgess’ work, including the subject property, has not been featured in any architectural periodicals or publications nor have homes built by Burgess won any awards. There does not appear to be a monograph or other significant scholarly discussions of Burgess’ career or any particular project.56 A search of the California Architects Board showed that Burgess was not a licensed architect. Burgess was also not a member of the American Institute of Architects.57
Evidence that Burgess was not an architect is supported by primary documents. In 1924, when Burgess was 24, his voting registration listed his profession as “salesman.” 58 Six years later, by
the 1930 census, Burgess’ profession was listed “self-employed real estate broker.” 59 His voting
registration from the same year listed his profession as “builder,” 60 indicating that he was
working as both a real estate broker and a builder simultaneously. Burgess’ voter registration from both 1936 and 1938 also list him as a “builder.”61 In the 1940 census, Burgess’ occupation was listed as “contractor”
62 while his 1942 voting registration lists his profession as “builder.”63 The original 1941 building permit for the subject property lists Carleton L. Burgess as the contractor, however there is no name listed for architect of the home.64 ESA researched permits for other properties built by Burgess for additional verification. The original building permit from 1927 for the home at 904 North Whittier Drive,65 the 1935 building permit for 1000 North Roxbury Drive,66 and the 1937 permit for 1002 North Roxbury Drive67 all list Burgess as a contractor; the section for architect is blank on all three permits. These homes, all located within a block of each other, indicate that Burgess was working as a contractor and not an architect and may have been capitalizing on the 1923 subdivision of the Beverly Hills Tract to develop lots in the neighborhood.

In addition, historic newspaper articles refer to Burgess as a builder or contractor; research did not identify any articles that referred to him as an architect. In 1935, a newspaper article noted

55 City of Beverly Hills, "List of Local Master Architects," Version 3.1, revised July 10, 2019. 56 A search for Burgess, the subject property, and other Burgess-built houses through the Avery Architectural Index at Columbia University yielded no results; additional research online, through historic newspapers, WorldCat, Google, and additional databases also yielded no results. 57 AIA historical directory; California Architects Board. 58 1924 voter registration, Ancestry.com. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 [database on-line]. 59 1930 United States Federal Census, Ancestry.com [database on-line]. 60 1930 voter registration, Ancestry.com. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 [database on-line]. 61 1936 voter registration, Ancestry.com. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 [database on-line]. 62 1940 United States Federal Census, Ancestry.com [database on-line]. 63 1942 voter registration, Ancestry.com. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 [database on-line]. 64 Beverly Hills Department of Building, "Application for the Erection of Buildings," issued to Mildred R. Naylor, September 29, 1941.
65 "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 904 North Whittier Drive, Permit 11511" City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings, April 1927.
66 "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 1000 North Roxbury Drive, Permit 13830" City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings, December 15, 1935.
67 "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 1002 North Roxbury Drive, Permit 15632" City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings, November 13, 1937.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 43 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
that "Carleton L. Burgess will build a residence at 1724 Chevy Chase Drive."68 Another 1935 newspaper articles stated that “Carleton L. Burgess plans the immediate construction of a $25,000 residence at 720 North Maple Drive, Beverly Hills.”69 Three years later a newspaper announcement for another Burgess project proclaimed that “a Holmby Hills estate development for Carleton L. Burgess is included in the October building permits issued for Westwood and Holmby Hills.”70 The same year, a newspaper article announced the construction of a home in Van Nuys, stating that “Carleton L. Burgess of 1724 Chevy Chase Drive is the contractor.”71 He was described as a “wealthy building contractor” in 1945 in a newspaper article announcing his divorce from Mary Katherine Burgess.72
There is also evidence that Burgess was a real estate developer and speculative real estate investor, as he purchased already-built homes as well as built on undeveloped lots without a specific owner or buyer already in place. In 1939, Burgess was advertised as the owner of a four bedroom home at 235 Ladera Drive in Holmby Hills, advertising the already-built home for sale in newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times.
73 A 1940 advertisement for a home for sale in
Beverly Hills included "C.L Burgess, owner” at the bottom of the advertisement.74 In 1945 Burgess purchased the residence at 710 North Hillcrest Drive from Groucho Marx for $60,000 to re-sell the property.
75 In 1953, Burgess also sold a home he owned (but did not build) at 809 North Crescent Drive to a buyer in Beverly Hills for $75,000. 76 This suggests that Burgess had
substantial capital to invest in these properties and was engaging in speculative real estate investment as well as development.

Further evidence of Burgess purchasing and developing properties to sell comes from original building permits for Burgess-built homes. The original building permit for 250 South Peck Drive, submitted in 1929, lists Carleton Burgess as both the owner and contractor of the home. The architect of the home was listed as G. McAlister.
77 Research did not indicate that Burgess
occupied this home, although he was listed as living at the home directly next door, 254 South Peck Drive, in his 1934 voter registration.78 The residence at 14920 Ranos Place in the Pacific Palisades was also designed by an architect, Edwin F. Rudolph, with Burgess as the home’s contractor.79 The original building permit for 907 Whittier Drive from 1937 also lists Burgess as

68 "Large Estate Being Developed," Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1938. 69 "Plans Started for $25,000 Residence," Los Angeles Times, September 15, 1935. 70 "Large Estate Being Developed," Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1938. 71 "$12,000 Home for Cedros Avenue," San Fernando Valley Times, June 30th, 1938. 72 "Wife Divorces Building Contractor," Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1948. 73 "New-Open," Los Angeles Times, August 30, 1939.
74 "Brand New," Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1940
75 "Residence Sold by Groucho Marx," Los Angeles Times, April 29, 1945. 76 "Deals Add up to $141,500," Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1953. 77 "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 250 South Peck Drive," City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings, May 15, 1929.
78 1934 voter registration, Ancestry.com. California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 [database on-line]. 79 "Permits for Week up to $140,000 as Local Building Boom Continues," West Los Angeles Independent, January 31, 1936.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 44 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
both the owner of the home and the contractor; there is no name listed as the architect.80 This suggests that while Burgess worked on some homes designed by architects, he was never the architect himself; he was consistently listed as contractor or builder.

The Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, a citywide property survey adopted by the City in 1986, also supports Burgess being a developer, contractor, and builder rather than an architect. In the survey, Burgess was described as a “builder.”81 Only one Burgess property was identified in this survey, the home located at 622 North Arden Drive. This residence was identified as a contributor to a potential historic district, the “North Arden Grouping.” This grouping was later referred to as the “Arden Drive Contractors Grouping” in corresponding DPR forms for potential contributors.82
The North Arden Grouping was identified as a potential district identified for its concentration of residences designed and/or developed by noted contractors and developers in the 1920s and 1930s.83 Fifty residences, including the Burgess property, were identified as contributors, with addresses ranging from 506 N. Arden Drive through 709 N. Arden Drive.84 The 1985 survey described the North Arden Grouping as follows:

A significant portion of this neighborhood was built by developers such as James Dickason and E.P Dentzel. North Arden Drive, from 506 through 709, is illustrative of this phenomenon. If the fifty contributing homes in this grouping, eight are associated with Dickason, who was usually listed as the owner, builder, and architect of the house.

In accordance with the patterns observed throughout the area, which includes approximately 41 Dickason houses. Dickason purchased clusters of lots and proceeded to develop them with mostly Spanish style homes...Other builders who constructed large numbers of homes included the Houseman Brothers, J.H. Hillock and son, Carleton L.

Burgess, Rene Rivera, and C.S Arganbright; examples by each of these are located in the North Arden grouping.85

80 "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 907 North Whittier Drive, Permit 15367" City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings, July 27, 1937.
81 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills (1985-1986), 52.
82 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills (1985-1986).
83 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills (1985-1986), 51-52.
84 The entire grouping was given a California Historical Resource status code of “5S3”, meaning that the grouping was “not eligible for National Register, but appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”; PCR Services Corporation, Historic Resources Survey Report: City of Beverly Hills, City of Beverly Hills, 2004, 36.
85 Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, prepared for the City of Beverly Hills (1985-1986), 51-52 and 4, 36-37; In 2004, the PCR survey reaffirmed the 5S3 status code for the grouping as a potential locally eligible district that “contain[ed] representative examples of single-family residences constructed by a variety of local contractors primarily in the 1920s whose work appears in neighborhoods throughout the City.” During the resurveying effort, three properties were removed as potential contributors to the Arden Drive Contractors Grouping, due to either demolition or significant inappropriate alterations. This left 46 contributors and 20 non-contributors to the grouping, which—as previously stated—remained eligible for local listing as a potential district. 622 North Arden Drive remained a contributor.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 45 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Additional evidence of Burgess’ profession as a builder, contractor, and developer rather than architect comes from revisions to Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects. The List of Local Master Architects was adopted by Beverly Hills City Council in 2012 as part of Resolution No. 3 of Ordinance No. 12-O-2617. This list was created as part of the newly established historic preservation program to comprehensively identify master architects and contractors as one criterion in designating City landmarks and historic districts.86 Compiled by the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission and the City’s historic consultant, Jan Ostashay, the list identified 150 architects and builders—both individuals and companies—who were active in Beverly Hills between 1900 to 1970.87 The list included “master architects who had designed properties in the city, and architects, designers and builders who may not be of recognized greatness, but who have designed or built properties in the city and are of local importance.”88 Three years later, in October of 2015, a Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission Report recommended a substantial revision to the List of Local Master Architects, which involved the “addition of further parties, parties suggested for further consideration, and parties to be eliminated from the list.”89 Following this recommendation, the definition of “master architect” and “architect” were revised in a manner such that the updated list no longer included either contractors or builders.90 At this time, several contractors and builders, such as J. H. Hillock and Son (builder), were recommended for elimination from the list and were subsequently removed from the list.

In preparation for these changes, Beverly Hills historic consultant, Jan Ostashay, reviewed the list under the new eligibility criteria for master architect listing, identifying those entities or individuals who would not qualify for listing. From this review, Carleton Burgess was identified as not meeting the criteria for listing as a master architect (Figure 33). While other contractors identified as ineligible were removed from the list, Burgess was not removed and remains on the master architect list to this day. While this research indicates that the definition of a master architect by the City has been further defined and that it does not include currently include contractors and builders; it appears that Burgess’ name has continued to be included on the list in error.

86 City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission, “Ordinance No. 12-O-2617, Resolution No. 3: Resolution of the Cultural Heritage Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Recommending that the City Council Adopt a List of Local Master Architects,” City of Beverly Hills, 2012. 87 Matt Lopez, “City OK’s List of Master Architects,” Beverly Hills Courier, January 1, 2010. 88 City of Beverly Hills Planning Division, “[DRAFT] List of Local Master Architects,” City of Beverly Hills, 2012. 89 “Cultural Heritage Commission Report: Revision to List of Local Master Architects,” City of Beverly Hills Planning Division, October 14, 2015.
90 Ibid.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 46 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: City of Beverly Hills
"Planning Commission
Report: Replacement of
Article 32 and Amendments
to Article

32.5 Regarding Historic
Preservation," December 11,
2014, page 107.

Figure 33
Excerpt of 2014 review of the City of Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects, completed by Jan Ostashay. Firms and individuals highlighted in red were identified as ineligible for listing. Burgess (outlined in yellow) was not removed from the Master Architect List as a result of this review and remains listed.

Other Properties Built by Burgess
ESA conducted research on Burgess’s built works to provide a referential framework for evaluation of the subject property. Burgess built several homes in Beverly Hills and the surrounding area. Information and photographs on identified properties built by Burgess are included below in Table 3. In addition to the home at 622 North Arden Place, discussed above, homes built or sold by Burgess in Beverly Hills include: 904 North Whittier Drive (1927; extant with alterations); 250 South Peck Drive (1929; extant); 622 North Arden Drive (1930; extant); 1724 Chevy Chase Drive (1935; extant); 720 North Maple Drive (1935; extant); 235 Ladera Drive (1938; extant with alterations); 907 North Whittier Drive (1937; extant with alterations); 1218 Coldwater Canyon Drive (1937; not extant); and 1004 Summit Drive (1940; extant).

Properties built by Burgess outside of Beverly Hills include: 1490 Remos Place, Pacific Palisades (1936; extant), and 6915 Cedros Avenue, Van Nuys (1938; not extant).91 In addition to the properties listed above, Burgess also built the home at 1002 North Roxbury Drive (1938; extant), which was the home of Jack Benny, a prominent comedian who began his career in vaudeville before moving to radio, film, and television from the 1930s to 1960s. Benny is most well-remembered for his long-running television show, The Jack Benny Program. 92 1002
North Roxbury has been altered since its original construction (Figure 34 and Figure 35). Visible

91 See Table 3 below for documentation identifying these properties as associated with Burgess. 92 Richard F. Shepard, "Jack Benny, 80, Dies of Cancer on Coast," The New York Times, December 28, 1974.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 47 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
alterations include the expansion of the bay window on the first floor; the removal of original fenestration on the second floor and replacement with a new window opening and balcony; and change in the coating of the exterior cladding of the home.

Burgess also built another home across the street from the subject property: 1000 North Roxbury Drive (1936; extant with alterations). This property was home to Lucille Ball, an actress and comedienne best known for her starring role as Lucy Ricardo in the long-running television show I Love Lucy.
93 This home has been substantially altered since its original constriction (Figure 36 and Figure 37). The wood cladding was removed and replaced with a smooth stucco; original fenestration openings were altered or removed; window types were changed; the roof material changed; and the primary entrance has been substantially modified. The home today does not resemble the original home in either materials or style. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles Public Library Figure 34
Undated historic photo (ca. 1939) of 1002 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Jack Benny, built by Carleton Burgess.

93 Arlisha R. Norwood, "Lucille Ball, 1911-1989," N.D, National Women's History Museum, https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/lucille-ball.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 48 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 35
2021 photo of 1002 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Jack Benny, built by Carleton Burgess. The home has undergone alterations since its construction, including the alteration of a window on the second floor and addition of a balcony and new fenestration and the expansion of the bay window on the first floor. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Beverly Hills Historical Society Figure 36
Undated historic image of 1000 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Lucille Ball built by Carleton Burgess.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 49 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 37
2021 Photo of 1000 North Roxbury Drive, former home of Lucille Ball built by Carleton Burgess. The home has been substantially altered since its original construction, including changes to the entryway, fenestration openings, cladding, and roof.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 50 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
TABLE 3

RESIDENCES BUILT OR SOLD BY CARLETON LYLE BURGESS
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1927 904 North Whittier
Drive, Beverly Hills
$12,000 City of Beverly Hills, "Log of
Projects Involving Master
Architect Properties," N.D,
https://beverlyhills.granicus.
com/MetaViewer.php?view_
id=52&clip_id=4586&meta_i
d=275163.

Original building permit.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant
(altered)
1929 250 South Peck
Drive, Beverly Hills
$25,000 City of Beverly Hills, "Log of
Projects Involving Master
Architect Properties," N.D,
https://beverlyhills.granicus.
com/MetaViewer.php?view_
id=52&clip_id=4586&meta_i
d=275163.

Original building permit.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant According to its original
building permit,
Burgess was the
contractor and owner
of this property when it
was constructed. G.

McAlister was listed as
the architect.
1930 622 North Arden
Drive, Beverly Hills
None listed PCR Services, "DPR Form:
622 North Arden Drive,"
June 1, 2004,
https://www.beverlyhills.org/
cbhfiles/storage/files/884947
962979022634/622N.Arden
Dr..PDF.

Image source: Redfin
Extant Part of the North Arden
Contractor Grouping
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 51 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1935 1724 Chevy
Chase Drive,
Beverly Hills
$30,000
(permit)
$15,000
(LA Times)
"Residence to be Built," Los
Angeles Times, August 18,
1935.

Original building permit
(1937)
Image source: Google Maps
Extant Burgess lived at this
property.
1935 720 North Maple
Drive, Beverly Hills
$25,000 "Plans Started for $25,000
Residence," Los Angeles
Times, September 15, 1935.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant Burgess was listed as
the owner of this home
on the original building
permit.
1936 14920 Ranos
Place, Pacific
Palisades
$15,000 "Permits for Week up to
$140,000 as Local Building
Boom Continues," West Los
Angeles Independent,
January 31, 1936.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant Residence and garage
for Mr. and Mrs. H. L.

McLaurin
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 52 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1938 6915 Cedros
Avenue, Van Nuys
$12,000 "$12,000 Home for Cedros
Avenue," San Fernando
Valley Times, June 30th,
1938.

Image source: Google Maps
Not extant
1938 235 Ladera Drive,
Beverly Hills
$30,000 "Beverly Hills Resident to
Erect $30,000 Home," West
Los Angeles Independent,
October 7, 1938.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant
(altered)
11 room residence and
garage. Several ads
marketing this home.;
Carleton Burgess was
listed as the owner of
the home.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 53 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1938 1002 North
Roxbury, Beverly
Hills
$50,000 Original building permit
Image source: ESA, 2021
Extant
(altered)
Jack Benny is listed as
original owner on the
building permit;
Burgess is listed as
contractor.
1936 1000 North
Roxbury, Beverly
Hills
$25,000 Original building permit
Image source: Google Maps
Extant
(altered)
.
1937 907 North Whittier
Drive, Beverly Hills
None listed City of Beverly Hills,
"Planning Commission
Report: 907 Whittier Drive,"
February 8, 2018,
http://beverlyhills.granicus.c
om/MetaViewer.php?view_i
d=&event_id=3660&meta_id
=356142.

Image source: Google Maps
Extant
(altered)
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 54 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1937 1218 Coldwater
Canyon, Beverly
Hills
None listed City of Beverly Hills,
"Historic Properties Project
Log, Section 2: Master
Architect Projects," N.D,
http://beverlyhills.granicus.c
om/MetaViewer.php?view_i
d=&event_id=3407&meta_id
=336072.

Image source: Coldwell
Banker
Not extant Image is the home
prior to demolition; the
house is blurred in
Google Maps.
1940 1004 Summit
Drive, Beverly Hills
None listed "Brand New," Los Angeles
Times, November 11, 1940
Image source: Redfin
Extant
Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 55 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Date Address Cost Source Extant? Notes Image
1953 809 North
Crescent Drive,
Beverly Hills
$75,000 "Deals Add up to $141,500,"
Los Angeles Times,
September 27, 1953.

Image source (top): "Deals
Add up to $141,500," Los
Angeles Times, September
27, 1953.

Image source (bottom):

Google Maps
Not extant Photograph of the
original home at top,
current home at
bottom.
"Sold to Penny Fisher
of New York City by
Carleton L. Burgess for
$75,000.... Ed Winchell
CO., Beverly Hills
Realtor, handled the
transaction."
Burgess did not build
this home according to
the home’s original
permits, but he did own
and then sell it.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 56 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Occupancy History
Table 4 summarizes the occupancy and ownership history of 1001 North Roxbury Drive. Beverly Hills-area directories and phone books, City of Beverly Hills building permits on file with the City’s Building Division, newspaper articles, as well as U. S. Census data and other records were reviewed to determine if the subject property has any significant associations with the productive lives of historic personages.

Mildred R. Naylor, Original Owner (Occupancy: 1942)
The subject property was originally constructed in 1942 for Mildred R. Naylor.94 Although Mildred was listed on the original building permit as the owner, a 1947 newspaper article notes that the subject property was owned by Mildred’s husband at the time, Howard Morton Naylor (1888-1974).
95 In 1942, Howard Morton Naylor owned his own oil company in Houston, Texas called H. M. Oil Company.96 The previously referenced 1947 newspaper article also notes a "huge Houston, Texas oil fortune” in the family.97 Mildred and Howard Naylor had a son named Robert Howard Naylor (1925 – 1945) who died while serving in the Army Air Force in Okinawa during World War II.98
Mildred and Howard Naylor were divorced in approximately 1943 at which point Mildred married Walter Emerson James and no longer occupied the subject property.99 Howard Morton Naylor married Mary Ann Naylor (1922-2003) also around 1943.100 Howard and Mary Ann Naylor lived in Los Angeles for several years before moving full-time to a ranch in Kerrville, Texas.101
The period during which Mildred and Howard occupied the subject property is unclear.

According to her son’s World War II draft card from 1942, Mildred lived at 824 Whittier Drive, Beverly Hills, located approximately half a mile from the subject property. 102 Howard Morton
Naylor’s 1942 draft card lists her as living at 9514 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles.103 It is

94 Beverly Hills Department of Building, "Application for the Erection of Buildings," issued to Mildred R. Naylor, September 29, 1941.
95 Hugh Ralston, "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 2, 1947.; "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor," Daily News, September 27th, 1943. 96 Howard Morton Naylor Draft Registration Card, 1942, Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line].
97 Hugh Ralston, "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 2, 1947. 98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.; "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor," Daily News, September 27th, 1943.
100 Note that Mary Ann’s obituary states that the couple married in 1941; this is likely an error, as primary documentation including Howard Naylor’s WWII draft card state that Howard and Mildred were still married as of 1942. "Mary Ann Naylor Obituary," The Kerrville Daily Times, December 30, 2003. 101 "Mary Ann Naylor Obituary," The Kerrville Daily Times, December 30, 2003. 102 Robert Howard Naylor Draft Registration Card, 1942, Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.; Hugh Ralston, "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 2, 1947. 103 Howard Morton Naylor Draft Registration Card, 1942, Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line].

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 57 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
unclear if these draft cards were filled out prior to the completion of the subject property or after its completion. It appears that Mildred Naylor did not occupy the subject property for a substantial amount of time, possibly as a result of her divorce form Howard Morton Naylor.

Adolph B. Spreckels II (Occupancy: c. 1943 - 1947)
The second owner of the subject property was Adolph Bernard Spreckels II (1911-1961), who occupied the residence from approximately 1943 until approximately 1947.104 Adolph was the heir to the Spreckels Sugar fortune. Spreckels Sugar was founded by Adolph Spreckels II’s grandfather, Claud Spreckels (1828-1908).105 Claud was a railroad man, industrialist, and newspaper owner who first began working in sugar in Hawaii. He founded Spreckels Sugar in California in 1896 and the company soon dominated west coast sugar production and sales. By 1901, the company had expanded to eight plants in California and continued to expand throughout the twentieth century.106
Adolph Spreckels II’s father Adolph B. Spreckels I (1857-1924) took over management of Spreckels Sugar Company in 1908 after the death of Claud Spreckels. In 1949, the company was taken over by Adolph Spreckles I’s wife's nephew, Charles Edouard de Bretteville, who formed a new outfit called the Spreckels Companies to purchase the business from stockholders, including Adolph B. Spreckles II.107
The Spreckels empire was vast and the family had enormous social, economic, and political influence throughout California. In the early 20th century, for example, Adolph Spreckels I and his brother John Spreckels owned much of downtown San Diego, California and all of Coronado, California. The brothers “installed electric streetcars, erected dams, opened Belmont Park, improved Balboa Park, and created the zoo’s first elephant enclosure.” 108
Adolph Spreckels II was the only son of Spreckels I, but research does not indicate that Spreckels II was involved in the family business or that he developed a career of his own outside the family dynasty. According to a 1949 Time article, “most of the heirs of old Claus—five women and three men, among them Playboy Adolph B. Spreckels Jr.—had shown little interest in the business. As they needed cash to continue living in their high & handsome manner, they preferred to liquidate the empire.”109 None of Spreckels’ obituaries mention a career or professional life, but they do describe him as "a member of the so-called 'international' set"110 and as “an active member of the 'international set' comprised of notables of Hollywood and European nobility." 111 At one point, he

104 "Joint Tenancy Deed," Adolph B. Spreckels and Kay Spreckels with Cole of California Inc., November 7, 1947.; "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor," Daily News, September 27th, 1943. 105 Spreckels Sugar Company, "Spreckels Sugar History," N.D, http://www.spreckelssugar.com/history.aspx. 106 Spreckels Sugar Company, "Spreckels Sugar History," N.D, http://www.spreckelssugar.com/history.aspx. 107 "Corporations: Sugar Plum," Time, June 27, 1949.
108 Peter Rowe, "The Spreckels Family, Embracing a Legendary Past and Abandoning Old Grudges," The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 24, 2018.
109 "Corporations: Sugar Plum," Time, June 27, 1949.
110 "Adolph Spreckels, Sugar Heir, Dies in Phoenix," The Fresno Bee, October 29, 1961. 111 "Spreckels Collapses, Dies at 49," Fort Lauderdale News, October 29th, 1961.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 58 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
was reportedly “less than honorably” 112 discharged from the army. In the 1930s, a woman named Beatrice Webb accused Spreckels of kicking and beating her.113 Spreckels II was married six times. He married his first wife, Louis Quantain Clarke de Ruyter in 1932. The couple had one child together before divorcing in 1935. 114 That same year, he married
Gloria de Becoise; the couple divorced in 1936.115 A couple of months later, he married his second cousin, Geraldine Spreckels; they divorced in 1937.116 He married his fourth wife, Emily Hall, in 1939. The couple divorced in 1940 with Hall claiming that Spreckels subscribed to Nazism and forced her to host his Nazi friends at their home.117 In 1945, Adolph married his fifth wife Kay Williams (1916-1983), a model and actress who was signed to MGM at the time of her marriage to Spreckels. The couple occupied the subject property together from approximately 1945 until 1947 (Spreckles II lived in the home for approximately two years prior to his marriage to Williams). The couple had two children together, a son named Bunker and a daughter named Joan. Spreckles and Williams eventually divorced in July 1953.
118 After her divorce from Spreckels, Williams married Clark Gable in 1955. Gable adopted both Joan and Bunker, and he and Williams had one biological son together.119
Williams said publicly on several occasions that Spreckels was abusive during their marriage. In 1953, after their divorce, Spreckels beat Williams to the point of hospitalization.120 At Spreckels’ sentencing hearing, Williams described Spreckels dragging her by the hair and beating her unconscious with her own shoe. She suffered from a severe concussion, among other injuries.121 In 1954, Spreckels was found guilty of assault and sentenced to thirty days in prison, ultimately serving twenty-five days.122 Three weeks after being found guilty of assault, Spreckels married his sixth and final wife, 22-year old Judith Powell of Beverly Hills. 123 Spreckels and Judith
remained married for thirty-four days before divorcing, with Judith saying that Spreckels broke her arm prior to their divorce.124 Spreckels died of a brain hemorrhage in 1961 after he left a hotel bar in Phoenix, fell, and hit his head on a stone pillar.125

112 "Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term,” The News and Observer, January 9th, 1954. 113 "Adolph Spreckels, Sugar Heir, Dies in Phoenix," The Fresno Bee, October 29, 1961. 114 "Spreckels Collapses, Dies at 49," Fort Lauderdale News, October 29th, 1961. 115 "Adolph Spreckels, Sugar Heir, Dies in Phoenix," The Fresno Bee, October 29, 1961. 116 "Spreckels Collapses, Dies at 49," Fort Lauderdale News, October 29th, 1961. 117 Ibid.
118 "Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term,” The News and Observer, January 9th, 1954. 119 "Spreckels Heir Dies After Fall," Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 29th, 1961. 120 "Fifth Wife Sues Spreckels Heir," Los Angeles Times, September 13, 1951.; "Actress Beaten Up, Ex-Husband Held," Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, August 21, 1953.
121 "Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term,” The News and Observer, January 9th, 1954. 122 "Adolph Spreckels, II Goes to Jail," The Courier-Journal, November 3rd, 1954.; "Sugar Heir's Re-Arrest is Readied in Beating," Deseret News and Telegram, August 27, 1953. 123 Hedda Hopper, "Spreckels Heir Marries Beverly Hills Beauty," Los Angeles Times, February 1st, 1954. 124 "Coincidence Has Spreckels, Ex Aboard Same Airplane," The Miami News, September 22nd, 1954. 125 "Spreckels Heir Dies After Fall," Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 29th, 1961.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 59 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Fred Cole (Occupancy: 1947 - 1954)
Between 1947 and 1954, the subject property was occupied by swimwear designer Fred Cole and his daughter Anne Cole.126 Fred Cole was born in 1897 and attended University of California Berkeley, graduating in 1923. While in school, Cole took drama courses which spurred an interest in acting. He had a short lived film career between 1923 and 1925, when he starred in several Western films with actresses including Laura La Plante.127 In 1925, he founded Cole of California (Cole’s), his swimwear line. Cole’s began as the swimwear division of his family's company, called West Coast Manchester Knitting Mills which focused on producing men's long knit underwear.128 Cole ran the swim war line until he sold it to Kayser-Roth in 1960.129
The line was successful and influential for decades. At its peak, the company had 2,000 retail outlets in the United States and abroad and was the country's largest manufacturer of swimsuits.130 Cole is credited for introducing cotton to swimwear in 1936. The company focused on producing parachutes during World War II. Esther Williams, a competitive swimmer and Hollywood actress who was signed to MGM Studios, was contracted as the model and spokesperson for Cole’s between 1948 and 1952. According to Cole’s daughter, Anne Cole, Williams would “come to the house quite a bit to swim.”131 Cole was known for his elaborate fashion shows. His obituary noted that he “popularized elaborate West Coast fashion shows” and would fly East Coast buyers to California to watch his fashion shows.132 One of the locations Cole used for these shows was the subject property. Cole frequently used the house to advertise his designs during “market week.” Market week was when designers could showcase their seasonal collections for fashion editors and buyers for clothing stores.133 Cole, who his daughter described as a “showman,” would put together elaborate fashion shows in the backyard and pool area of the subject property.134 However, the pool at the subject property where Cole’s fashion shows took place has been demolished and is no longer extant and a new pool was later built in a new location. Cole constructed grandstands for more than seventy people on the grass and put up curtains by the pool area to serve as a backstage area. The productions at the subject property could be elaborate, featuring synchronized swim routines or models wearing Cole’s designs taking a “surprise” splash into the pool. Anne Cole remembers

126 Grant deeds for 1001 N. Roxbury Drive.
127 "Fred Cole Dead," The New York Times, September 21, 1964. 128 Deborah Belgum, "Obituary: Anne Cole, Swimwear Designer, 90," California Apparel News, January 10, 2017, https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2017/jan/10/obituary-anne-cole-swimwear-designer-90/. 129 Belgum, "Obituary: Anne Cole.”
130 "Fred Cole Dead," The New York Times, September 21, 1964. 131 Rose Apodaca, "Legacy of swimwear giant Cole runs deep," Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2007, https://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ig-lookback15apr15-story.html. 132 "Fred Cole Dead," The New York Times, September 21, 1964. 133 Ibid.
134 Ibid.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 60 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
one particularly elaborate showcase at the property, recalling that they “built a bridge of glass so it would look like Esther [Williams] could walk on water.”135 Cole of California was a significant name in swimwear design during its time. It was the first company to introduce the tank swimming suit, the boy-cut bottom, the overskirt, and swimsuit styles without straps or backs. Parisian designer Christian Dior reportedly even turned to Cole for advice when he made his first and only excursion into swimwear.136 Other Occupants of the Subject Property
According to the property’s grant deeds, the home was occupied by John Peder Rinde and Constance Rinde from 1954 to 1960. Research did not identify any career or biographical information on the Rindes.137
The home was next occupied Patrick Frawley Jr. and his wife Geraldine Ann Frawley from 1960 to 1965. Patrick Frawley was a business magnate who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Paper Mate Pen Company from approximately 1950 to 1955. From 1958 to 1970, Frawley was chairman and chief executive of Schick Safety Razor Company while simultaneously serving as chairman of Technicolor (1961-1970). Frawley later published the weekly newspapers National Catholic Register and Catholic Twin Circle. Prior to his death in 1998, Frawley operated Shadel Hospitals which had locations in California, Washington, and Texas and espoused aversion therapy as a treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction. 138
From 1965 to 1985, the property was occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Mitchell and Frank Spangler. Joseph Mitchell was the President and CEO of Beneficial Standard Life Insurance and Beneficial Standard Corporation.139 He was the son of the company's co-founder, Edward D.

Mitchell and began working at the company in 1946.
140 Later in his life, Mitchell was an active
philanthropist in Los Angeles, including participation on the board for the Music Center Fund Campaign, United Way Los Angeles, and Cedars-Sinai.141
Other occupants of the property include Allen D. Kohl from 1984 until 2004. His wife at the time, Bonnie Kohl, also occupied the property from 1985 until 1994, when the couple separated. Allen D. Kohl was part of the family that founded Kohl’s Department Store.142 Kohl himself founded Regent Properties in Los Angeles in approximately 1988, a commercial real estate development

135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 Property Grant Deeds; Research was conducted via Newspapers.com; ProQuest Historical Newspapers for the Los Angeles Times; Calisphere; Google; and Ancestry.com
138 Myrna Oliver, "Patrick J. Frawley Jr.; Business Magnate," Los Angeles Times, November 5, 1998. 139 "Joseph N. Mitchell, 82; Benefactor, Head of Family Insurance Firm," Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2004. 140 Architectural Resources Group, "Beneficial Plaza and Liberty Park Historic Cultural Monument Nomination," June 2017, 11.
141 "Joseph N. Mitchell, 82; Benefactor, Head of Family Insurance Firm," Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2004. 142 "Kohl," Los Angeles Business Journal, June 9, 1997.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 61 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
company that developed large-scale properties such as the 160,000 square foot Glendale Marketplace.143
From 2004 until 2011, the property was owned by David Bohnett, philanthropist and founder of pioneering social network GeoCities, which was sold to Yahoo in 1994. Bohnett currently heads the venture capital firm Baroda Ventures LLC.144 From 2011 until subject property was sold to its current owner in 2020, the residence was owned by Joshua Greer, co-founder RealID, a company that made 3D movie glasses and related equipment to sell to movie theaters.145 Prior to the sale of the home to its current owner, the Greers rented the home to Casey Wasserman, founder of the Wasserman Media Group, and his wife Laura Ziffen, a movie music supervisor.146 TABLE 4
OCCUPANCY HISTORY OF 1001 N. ROXBURY DRIVE
Year Source Owner/Occupant Notes
c. 1942 Original building
permit; Newspaper
articles
Mildred R. Naylor Mildred and her husband appear to
have divorced around 1943 and
research indicated that Naylor
occupied the home at 824 Whittier
Drive by at least 1943.
c.1943-
1947
Grant deed;
Newspaper articles;
Adolph B. Spreckels and Kay
(Williams) Spreckels
Joint tenancy with Cole of California
as of 1947; Adolph was heir to a
sugar fortune, Kay was an actress.
1947 -
1954
Grant deed; Pacific
telephone
Fred Cole
Anne Cole
Swimwear designer and his
daughter who also worked for the
company.
1954 -
1960
Grant deed John Peder Rinde and
Constance Rinde
No information identified
1960 -
1964
Grant deed Patrick J. Frawley, Jr. and
Gerardine Ann Frawley
Founder of Paper Mate; investor in
Technocolor
1964 -
1985
Newspapers; Pacific
Telephone; Building
permits
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Mitchell
Frank Spangler
President and CEO of Beneficial
Standard Life Insurance and
Beneficial Standard Corporation
1985 -
2004
Building Permits;
Grant deed
Mr. and Mrs. Allen D. Kohl Family founded Kohl’s Department Store
2004 -
2010
Building Permits;
Grant deed
Baroda Ventures LLC (David
Bohnett’s company); David
Bohnett
Founder of GeoCities; note that
Allen D. Kohl was still submitting
building permits for the property as
late as 2006. Daivd Bohnett was
also submitting permits in this
period as well. It is possible that
building improvements by the
previous owner were part of the
sales deal to Bohnett.

143 Regent Properties, "Glendale Marketplace," N.D, https://www.regentproperties.com/california-glendalemarketplace 144 "David Bohnett," N.D, Baroda Ventures, https://www.barodaventures.com/david-bohnett. 145 "RealD Co-Founder Joshua Greer to Transition into Advisory Role and Remain on Board of Directors," BusinessWire, May 19, 2011, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110519005339/en/RealD-Co-FounderJoshua-Greer-to-Transition-into-Advisory-Role-and-Remain-on-Board-of-Directors. 146 Matthew Blake, "Beverly Hills Flats Home Sells for $40M, Reported Record for Area," The Real Deal, September 23, 2020, https://therealdeal.com/la/2020/09/23/beverly-hills-flats-home-sells-for-40m-reported-record-for-area/.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 62 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Year Source Owner/Occupant Notes
2010 -
2020
Building permits;
Grant deeds;
Newspaper articles
Lisa and Joshua Greer Founder of RealID
2020 Newspaper article Casey Wasserman and
Laura Ziffen (renting)
Founder of Wasserman Media
Group; renting the subject property
2020 Grant deed Groverbury LLC LLC of the current owner Evaluation
Architectural Description
The subject property is a large two-story, single-family, Regency Revival-style residence plus garage sitting on an estate comprised of two rectilinear lots on the corner of Roxbury Drive to the north and Lexington Road to the east in Beverly Hills, California. The property faces Roxbury Drive is bordered by Whittier Drive to the south. The home is large and composed of several interconnected volumes. The central horizontal main block has a porte-cochere and garage attached on the west end, and there is a projecting one-story southern wing, a portion of which appears to be an addition. See Figure 38 below for a visual breakdown of these spaces.

The subject property is wood frame with a concrete foundation, clad with irregular (textured) running bond brick veneer (painted white) and a denticulated brick cornice on the north, east, and part of the south elevations; clapboard siding on the west garage; and smooth stucco on the west and rear south elevation. The home has an asymmetrical composition and rectangular massing with the main entrance located at the approximate center of the main block on the primary north elevation.

The home has a steeply-pitched multi-gabled roof clad in composite shingles with four prominent chimneys. There is one dormer window clad in stucco on the eastern side of the roof, which has a double hung aluminum frame with replacement glass and two dormer windows on the garage.

Fenestration consists primarily of wood frame multi-light polygonal bay windows, wood frame double-hung multi-light arched windows, and aluminum frame or wood frame rectangular 6-light double hung windows, primarily on the south and east elevations. Physical surveying of the subject property indicates that although many of the windows may still have their original wood frames, the glass is replacement double pane. Except for the transom over the front door, all of the window glass in all of the windows on the house is double-paned, and there is no original/old single-pane glass extant, indicating that the windows have been altered or are later replacements.

There is a garage and porte-cochere on the west side of the home. Additional living space extends from the center of the home into the southern rear yard.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 63 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Bing Aerial Maps Figure 38
Aerial view of the subject property. The overall footprint of the residence is outlined in orange. The porte-cochere is outlined in green, the garage is outlined in orange, and the projecting rear wing addition is outlined in blue.

Site and Landscaping
The property has a brick garden wall and tall privacy hedge; only the primary north elevation is visible from the public right of way on Roxbury Drive. The north elevation has a large manicured lawn with a brick path extending across its width, brick planters painted white, and mature trees scattered across the front lawn. (Figure 39). Additional brick paths lead to the main entrance from the public sidewalk. There is a decorative metal gate on the east side of the lot leading to the rear of the property. The front driveway leads to the home’s porte-cochere, while a secondary driveway provides access to the lot from the south.

The subject property has expansive private grounds at its south garden side. The landscaping consists of manicured lawns punctuated by brick paths that provide access to the various ancillary structures and recreational spaces (Figure 40). The west side of the yard has a large, non-original pool (Figure 41). The pool has a stone patio around its perimeter and is bordered by a brick wall with mature trees and various other lush plantings. There is also a koi point at the northeast corner of the property (Figure 42), directly adjacent to the pool. It has a stone path surrounding the pond and mature trees and other plantings around. On the western edge of the lot sits a full-size tennis court (Figure 43).

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 64 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
North Façade (Primary)
The north façade is a long two-story horizontal mass that consists of the main residential block on the east half of the lot and the attached porte-cochere and garage on the west side (Figures 44-46) with a motor court behind the garage. The main entrance is located at the approximate center of the residence’s main block (Figure 47). Two steps lead to a brick patio outside the front entrance. The entrance has a simple classical wood surround with flanking pilasters (painted white) and rectangular transom window (leaded glass). The single-leaf wood front door has four raised panels. A non-original light was installed on the ceiling of the door’s entryway.

On the first floor, two bays sit to the east of the main entrance (Figure 48). The easternmost bay is a small arched window with molded wood surrounds and diamond shaped leaded frame. Above the window is an arched lintel with a decorative keystone at the center. The window has wood arch top raised panel shutters painted black that extend past the window’s projecting brick sill.

Below the window is a raised wood panel. Directly adjacent to this window is a small rectangular 4/4 double hung wood frame window covered with a 3/3 rectangular grid of concrete or brick. A metal drainage pipe extends from the base of the building to its roofline.

To the west, between the windows described above and the main entrance, is a curved tripartite wood frame polygonal bay window with molded wood mullions and surrounds (also visible in Figure 48). The middle portion of the window is 24-lights with two raised wood panels below.

The windows on either side of the center are casement wood frame 12-light windows, each with one raised wood panel below.

The westernmost portion of the elevation, located to the direct west of the main entrance, projects out from the rest of the residence and features a bay window (Figure 49). This polygonal bay window is nearly identical to the eastern bay window, except it is larger and more pronounced.

There is a non-original stucco clad dormer window with 6-light aluminum frame and replacement glass protruding out the west-facing side of this volume’s second story (Figure 50).

Second floor fenestration consists of three identical arched openings consisting of a pair of multilight wood frame doors in molded wood surrounds and with leaded arched transom window and arched brick lintel with decorative keystone above that open to metal balconettes. One of these arched openings is located above the eastern bay window, one above the main entrance, and one above the western protruding bay window (visible in previously referenced Figures 47 - 49).

Each of these windows has a flared broken pediment above it. The westernmost broken pediment, above the protruding bay window, also features a circular attic vent at the pediment’s peak.

The porte-cochere portion of the north elevation is slightly setback from the residence (Figure 51) with three dormer windows and a chimney on its roof. The dormer windows are clad in stucco and are aluminum frame 6-light with replacement glass and a flared broken pediment above. The porte-cochere is clad in the same brick veneer as the residence and has decorative metal gate with grilles surrounding the entrance. The east side of has a wood frame 4-light double hung window covered by concrete Xs. The passageway of the porte-cochere is clad in smooth stucco. When entering the porte-cochere, there are two 4 light wood frame windows with wood panel shutters and wood sills on the east side. There is also a 6-light door with raised wood panel Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 65 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
accessible via two brick steps that leads into the residence (Figure 52). On the west side there are two 4-light wood doors providing access to the garage with raised panels and a double hung 6- light window with raised wood panel shutters and wood sill (Figure 53).

The garage portion of the north elevation is three bays across (Figure 54). It is clad in horizontal wood siding. The roof has two dormer windows: one that is identical to the home’s other dormer windows on the west side and one that is an elongated horizontal dormer with an oval window clad in wood siding (Figure 55). There are three identical windows rectangular 6-light metal aluminum frame double hung windows with wood surrounds and raised wood panel shutters painted black (visible in previously referenced Figure 54).

West Elevation - Garage
The west elevation of the garage (Figure 56) is fenced in on all sides and is used as a service area for the home’s HVAC and mechanical equipment. The roof features a gable end glad in woo single with a triangular vent at its peak. The elevation is otherwise clad in sooth stucco. There is a four-light wood door with raised wood panel below leading into the garage on the south end of the elevation and a 6 light aluminum frame window on the north end. There is a wood clad nonoriginal ancillary structure at the north end of the elevation accessible via a two panel wood door.

South Elevation – Porte-Cochere and Garage
The porte-cochere leads to a large brick driveway and parking area that provides access to the home’s south rear yard (Figure 57). The south elevation of the garage and porte-cochere (Figure 58) is clad in smooth stucco. A white brick fence with gate extends from the west side of the garage. There are two wood garage doors with 8 wood panels each on the first floor. The second floor, above the garage, has a non-original second story addition that features paired 12-light double hung aluminum windows (also visible in Figure 58).

The porte-cochere to the immediate east of the garage (Figure 59) has a pair of 6-light double hung aluminum frame windows. The second floor features a 4-light aluminum frame window with wood sill and wood raised paneled shutters and two 10-light paired French doors leading to a small metal balconette (possible alteration). On the far east side of the second floor is a 6-light wood frame window. There is ivory growing up the south elevation and surrounding the portecochere's arched entryway.

West Elevation – Residence
The residence’s west two-story elevation has a broken pediment on the north side at the roofline with a round attic vent at its peak. There are three identical 6-light aluminum frame windows with paneled wood shutters on the second floor. There is a non-original cut out at the south side of the elevation (Figure 60). The first floor features a 6-light aluminum frame window with paneled wood shutters and plant box and three aluminum frame double hung windows to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 66 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
One-Story Projecting Volume (All Elevations)
The west elevation of the one-story projecting volume (addition), as delineated in previously referenced Figure 38, has a pair of 4-light aluminum frame double hung windows with raised wood panel shutters (Figure 61). Two simple rectangular columns with Doric capitals support a wood panel clad pediment with circular attic vent. This pediment overhangs a three door composition (Figure 62). At the center is a non-original rectangular volume that projects out from the wall, accessible via a single-panel wood double door. On either side of this column are setback 6-light wood doors with raised panels at their base. A brick fence with decorative metal gate separates this portion of the west elevation and driveway area from the rest of the elevation.

Passing through these gates, the remainder of the volume’s west elevation consists of a brick fenced off patio area that also features a decorative metal gateway (Figure 63). A pair of six-light French doors with raised wood panel at the base provide access to the interior space.

The south elevation of the one-story volume has a gable end clad in horizontal wood siding and a circular attic vent at the peak of the gable end (Figure 64). The rest of the volume is clad with smooth stucco with three 6-light aluminum frame with wood panel shutters windows grouped together. The windows are flanked by non-original lights on either side. A shrub runs the entirety of the base that extends to cover a patio that is surrounded by a low brick wall.

The one-story projecting volume’s east elevation (Figure 65) has a pair of aluminum frame 6- light windows with paneled wood shutters and a smaller rectangular 6-light window with small wood panel shutters. There is a wood panel door directly adjacent to these windows. The remainder of the volume projects out from the single-story base and has a window with a tripartite arrangement. The center is composed of a 15-light aluminum frame window with two identical vertical 3-light windows on either side. The south-facing side of this volume has a pair of 6-light wood frame double doors with raised wood panels at their base flanked on either side with a 6-light wood frame window with raised wood panel beneath. A non-original stucco halfwall rises from the roof of this elevation and provides an outdoor balcony space for the residence’s second floor.

South Elevation – Residence
The south elevation of the subject property has an asymmetrical composition (Figure 66) and appears to be substantially altered. The elevation is clad in smooth stucco and has a large brick patio (non-original) with a rectangular two-story central core with an eastern slightly subordinate portion that protrudes slightly from the central core. The southern projecting one and two-story alterations/additions visible in photographs of the south elevation is described independently above.

The central core of the south elevation (Figure 67) has three arched openings (later alterations/additions) from the patio that lead to a covered area with identical doors on its north, east, and west walls (Figure 68). These doors are 6-light double doors with a raised wood panel at the base. The second floor for the east elevation’s central core has a covered balcony (nonoriginal/alteration) extending across its width. The balcony is supported by rectangular nonoriginal pillars. There is a non-original metal railing in between the pillars. There are four sets of Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 67 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
similar non-original 12-light wood frame French doors that extend across the entire width of the balcony (Figure 69). The eastern portion of the south elevation (Figure 70) is clad in brick rather than stucco. It has a pediment at the roofline that is clad in wood siding. There is a grouping of three multi-light windows with raised wood panel shutters and a metal balconette with decorative dentils. Directly below is a projecting 24-light wood frame bay window (Figure 71).

East Elevation - Residence
The east elevation of the residence (Figure 72) features a broken pediment at the roofline with decorative brick dentils below. The first floor is dominated by a large rounded bay window with five sets of 8-light painted wood frame windows (Figure 73). Simple pilasters sit on either side of the bay window. The entablature of the bay window continues the line of the pilasters’ capital across the top of the window. The window has a rounded roof clad with composite shingles.

There are raised wood panels at the base of the bay window that follow the rounded curve of the window. A brick masonry sill projects out of the base of the window. Non-original lights flank the bay window on its north and south sides.

The second floor features four paired windows 6-light wood frame windows with painted wood shutters, brick sills, and raised wood panels below (Figure 74). The windows on the east elevation overlook the home’s non-original koi pond. The remainder of the elevation is simple, unornamented painted brick veneer.

Tennis Building (South Grounds)
A non-original ancillary structure (Figure 75) sits on the east edge of the tennis court, accessible via a brick path lined on either sides with gravel and trees. This structure is symmetrical with a rectangular footprint with a flat roof that does not provide full coverage – the center of the structure has wood panel ceiling, but the perimeter on all elevations have a slated roof (Figure 76). There is a wood parapet at the roofline. The roof is supported by rectangular columns, four on each of the structure’s elevations, that stand on a half-brick wall that extends around the structure's perimeter. There are two openings to enter and exit the structure, one at the north elevation and an identical opening at the south elevation. These openings have feature a pediment at the roofline. A simple classically-inspired entablature run around the entirety of the structure at the roofline.

Pool House (South Grounds)
There is an original pool house at the southern rear of the property. The pool house has a t-shaped footprint and symmetrical composition with a gable roof clad in composite shingles that features a cupola at its center and a wood parapet at the roofline. The structure is clad with horizontal wood clapboard and brick at the base. There is a brick patio around its perimeter. The north elevation has four identical 8-light wood frame French doors that span its entire width. The west elevation (Figure 77) projects out from the rest of the structure and has a pediment roof with circular attic vent. It is covered with an overhang supported by four rectangular columns standing on a brick fence. There is a wood door with two arched windows and a raised wood panel. It is clad in wood clapboard shingles and brick veneer at the base. The setback north portion has a Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 68 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
single-pane glass door with wood frame flanked by two vertical 4-light windows. The east elevation (Figure 78) is identical to the west elevation. The south elevation (Figure 79) is six bays across, all of which are 9-light aluminum frame double-hung. There is a flower and vegetable garden behind the south elevation.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 39
Landscaping at the north elevation of the subject property, including brick paths and half-walls, mature trees, and manicured lawn. View to the north.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 40
Manicured southern law. View to the southwest.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 69 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 41
Pool area on the west half of the lot. View to the south. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 42
Non-original koi pond at the northeast corner of the subject property’s lot. View to the north.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 70 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 43
Non-original tennis court on the west side of the lot. View to the north. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 44
Overall view of the subject property’s north elevation.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 71 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Google Map Figure 45
Overall view of the subject property’s north elevation. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: Linda May, 2020 Figure 46
Overall view of the subject property’s north (primary elevation). View to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 72 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 47
Main entrance to the subject property at the approximate center of the north elevation. Brick stairs lead up to a brick patio and front door with wood raised panels and leaded transom window in a classical molded wood surround. View to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 73 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 48
East half of the north elevation featuring small arched window with molded wood surround and diamond shaped leaded frame and polygonal wood frame bay window. View to the south.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 49
Polygonal wood frame bay window on the western portion of the north elevation. Pool area on the west half of the lot. View taken looking southwest.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 74 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 50
Non-original dormer window with flared pediment and aluminum frame on the west side of the north elevation. View to the east. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 51
Subject property’s porte-cochere on its north elevation. View to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 75 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 52
East wall of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the west. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 53
West wall of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the east.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 76 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 54
The garage on the subject property’s north elevation featuring three identical 6-light aluminum frame double hung window with wood surrounds on the ground floor and dormer windows on the roof. View to the east.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 55
Horizontal dormer with oval window on the subject property’s north garage. View to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 77 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 56
West elevation of the garage with non-original attached structure and service area. View to the west.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 57
Overall view of the subject property’s garage and porte-cochere’s south elevation with brick parking area. View to the north.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 78 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 58
South elevation of the subject property’s garage with likely alterations on the roof outlined in red. View to the north.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 59
South elevation of the subject property’s porte-cochere. View to the north.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 79 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 60
Residence’s original western elevation (outlined in green) with one story rear service wing alterations and additions on the south end (right). View to the east.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 61
Residence’s western elevation with one-story southern service wing (altered and additions constructed). View to the southeast.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 80 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 62
Tripartite composition of western elevation’s one-story northern portion with likely non-original rectangular volume underneath the center of the pedimented roof overhang (red arrow). View to the east. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 63
Residence’s west elevation with brick fenced off patio area with decorative metal gateway. View to the northeast.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 81 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 64
South elevation of the one-story projecting addition with wood clad pediment and identical 6-ight aluminum frame windows with wood shutters. View to the northwest.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 65
East-facing elevation of the one-story addition at the subject property’s south rear elevation. View to the northwest.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 82 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 66
Overall view of the south elevation of the subject property with red arrows indicating location of additions/alterations. View to the north.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 83 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 67
South elevation (altered) of the subject property with altered arched openings on the first floor leading into a non-original covered patio area and non-original covered balcony on the second floor. View to the north.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 68
Representative 6-light wood frame doors (non-original) with raised wood panels at the base in the covered first-floor patio area of the south elevation. View to the east.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 84 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 69
Detail of the south elevation’s second story balcony (non-original alteration/addition) with rectangular pillars, metal railings and French doors. View to the northwest.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 70
Easternmost portion of the southern elevation .showing the pediment at the roofline, balconette, and paired windows with wood shutters.

View to the northwest.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 85 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 71
Projecting bay window on the first floor of the easternmost portion of the southern elevation. View to the north.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 72
Overall view of the residence’s east elevation. View to the west.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 86 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 73
Detail view of the east elevation’s rounded tripartite bay window with wood frames and classical surround. View to the northwest. 1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 74
Detail view of the east elevation’s second-story 6-light wood frame windows with wood shutters. View to the west.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 87 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 75
Non-original ancillary structure on the west side of the subject property’s lot. View to the west.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 76
Detail view of the ancillary structure’s roof and slated roof. View to the south.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 88 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 77
North elevation of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. The front porch may have been enclosed since the building’s original construction; the east and west porches may also be additions. View to the south.
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 78
East elevation of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. View to the east.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 89 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
1001 N. Roxbury Drive HRA / D202100618.00
SOURCE: ESA 2021 Figure 79
South and west elevations of the subject property’s pool house located at the southern rear of the lot. There is a vegetable and flower garden, also pictured. View to the west.

Significance Evaluation
ESA evaluated the subject property for significance as an individual historical resource under federal, state, and City criteria. The subject property was built in the Regency Revival style in 1942 by builder and contractor Carleton Lyle Burgess. The building permit history for the subject property indicates that several modifications were made to the property, most notably beginning in the 1980s and thereafter. The subject property was evaluated as an individual resource under the historical and architectural themes, Development of Beverly Hills and Establishment of the Movie Colony (1920-1945) and the Beverly Hills Tract (1923 - 1950), and, Regency Revival Style (1935-1950). The property was also reviewed as an example of the work of builder Carleton Lyle Burgess, who is currently listed on the City of Beverly Hills’ List of Local Master Architects, but should not be included in the list because his is not an architect as documented in this Report.

National Register and California Register
Broad Patterns of History
National Register Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

California Register Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
The subject property sits in the Beverly Hills Tract, which was first subdivided for residential development in 1923. The tract was developed with large, single-family residences primarily in popular the Period Revival and Regency Revival styles for the next decade and a half, with almost all the lots in the tract being improved with residences by 1950. The tract has remained large single-family residential and estate homes since its first subdivision. The subject property was constructed near the of this early development period, following the pattern set by earlier construction. The subject property was one of the last to be developed within the tract and followed previously established developmental trends for the neighborhood rather being a trend setter.

While the home was constructed within the tract’s original development period, the area surrounding the subject property has been substantially altered since the home’s construction by later redevelopment. There has been construction of new contemporary homes, including the residences at 1008 (built in 1996), 1019 (built in 2007), and 1021 (built in 2015) North Roxbury Drive, among others.
147 The neighborhood’s character has further been affected due to significant later alterations to original remaining homes in the neighborhood, including the two homes directly across the street from the subject property at 1000 and 1002 North Roxbury Drive, also built by Carleton Burgess (see the “Carleton Lyle Burgess, Builder” section of this report for more information on the alterations to these properties and a comparison of historic and contemporary photographs of the residences). The contemporary new construction and alterations to original homes in the neighborhood diminish the area’s ability to convey its earliest pattern of development. The neighborhood lacks integrity due to these alterations and changes that undermine its ability to be visually understood as a cohesive historic neighborhood tract or district. Due these changes, the subject property has lost integrity of setting and association and cannot convey a broad pattern of development.

As a result, 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not appear to meet the thresholds of significance for individual eligibility under National Register Criterion A or California Register Criterion 1.

Significant Persons
National Register Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

California Register Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

The subject property was constructed for Mildred R. Naylor, according to the original 1941 building permit. Research did not identify significant information on Naylor; she was married to Howard Morton Naylor, who earned his money in the oil industry in Houston, Texas. Mildred and Howard had divorced by 1943148 and research indicated that neither individual occupied the subject property for more than a year (see the “Occupancy History” section of this report for a breakdown of the years of inhabitance for the property’s various occupants).The Naylors do not

147 Dates of construction for these residences comes from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office online portal. 148 "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor," Daily News, September 27th, 1943.; "Mary Ann Naylor Obituary," The Kerrville Daily Times, December 30, 2003.; Hugh Ralston, "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million," Hollywood Citizen-News, July 2, 1947.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 91 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
appear to meet the threshold of significance as significant persons, and the subject property is ineligible under Criterion B/2 for their association with the subject property.

The subject property has subsequently been occupied by several potentially notable figures. The property’s second owner was Adolph B. Spreckels II, the heir to the Spreckels Sugar fortune. The Spreckels family as a whole was powerful and influential in California. Spreckels II, however, was not actively involved in the family business, nor did he appear to have a career of his own.149 Research did not identify any significant contributions Spreckels II made to the development of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, or California at large. His violence towards his fifth wife Kay Williams, who also occupied the subject property, resulted in his being sentenced to a short prison term.150 As a result, Spreckels II was not a significant figure as defined by state and national eligibility requirements.

Swimwear designer Fred Cole was another occupant of the subject property. Cole was a prominent and influential designer in the early to mid-twentieth century and used the subject property’s original pool to showcase his designs to potential buyers. Esther Williams was the brand’s spokesmodel and frequently visited the subject property for personal and business visits.151 While this would be a significant association with the property, the pool used by Cole to stage his fashion shows was demolished in the 1980s and replaced with a new pool in a different location on the property’s grounds. As a result, the property lacks the integrity to convey this association with Cole’s productive professional life.

Although the home was occupied by several other prominent business people throughout its history, including Patrick Frawley, Allen D. Kohl, and David Bohnett, among others, there is no indication that these individuals utilized the home to conduct business during their productive periods. Research did not identify that home as being a significant place of business or as the site of a significant even in these occupants’ lives. Their association with the subject property consequently does not rise to the level required for State or Federal listing.

As a result, 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not appear to meet the thresholds of significance for individual eligibility under National Register Criterion B or California Register Criterion 2.

Architecture
National Register Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

149 "Corporations: Sugar Plum," Time, June 27, 1949.
150 "Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term,” The News and Observer, January 9th, 1954. 151 Rose Apodaca, "Legacy of swimwear giant Cole runs deep," Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2007.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 92 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
California Register Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

The subject property is a Regency Revival-style single-family home situated on two prominent corner lots at the intersection of Roxbury Drive and Lexington Road. The home retains its integrity of design on its primary north elevation from the public right of way on Roxbury Drive; most alterations to the home occurred on the southern rear of the property and cannot be seen from the street.

While the home is a large and fairly intact example of the style, it is not a distinctive or exceptional example. There are many Regency Revival-style homes in the subject property’s neighborhood, in Beverly Hills generally, and in the greater Los Angeles area at large. A notable grouping of Regency Revival homes is located directly to the south of the subject property, on Whittier Drive (see the “Regency Revival Style, 1930-1950” historic context in this report for additional Regency Revival homes in Beverly Hills). These homes, including 915 and 918 Whittier Drive, both built in 1937, pre-dated the construction of the subject property by five years and are also examples of the Regency Revival style. The subject property was constructed later than most of the homes in the neighborhood, including those across the street at 1000 North Roxbury Drive (1936) and 1002 North Roxbury Drive (1938) and followed the popular architectural trends in the neighborhood but was not a trend setter in Beverly Hills. The home is not a distinctive example of the style and, other than it large size, is not particularly notable among the many similar homes in its proximity. The residence is a good local example of the style, but its design does not rise to the level of exceptionality required for listing at the State or National levels.

The property further was not designed by a master architect. The home was built by Carleton Burgess, a builder and contractor. Although Burgess is currently listed on the Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects, he was not a licensed architect, his work has not been the subject of scholarly discussion, and none of his work has been published in architectural periodicals.

Original building permits for both the subject property and other homes built by Burgess never list him as an architect, only as a contractor or builder. Historical newspapers referred to him as a builder, contractor, or real estate developer and never an architect. He also appeared to be purchasing lots and developing homes to sell, indicating that he was also working as a real estate developer and speculator. See the “Carleton Lyle Burgess, Builder” section in this report for an extensive discussion of these primary sources. The subject property, consequently, was not designed by a master architect.

While the subject property retains integrity of location and design as viewed from the public right of way, all of the window glass has been replaced, the roof has been replaced, new chimneys have been added, and brick veneer has been painted white. The property setting in the south portion of the grounds has been substantially altered, as has the rear (south) elevation of the house.

Therefore, the subject property lacks integrity to convey the appearance of its original construction intact.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 93 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
As a result, 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not appear to meet the thresholds of significance for individual eligibility under National Register Criterion C or California Register Criterion 3.

Data Potential
National Register Criterion D. It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

California Register Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

While most often applied to archaeological districts and sites, Criterion D/4 can also apply to buildings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D/4, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. The subject property has been improved and intensively graded and does not appear to have the potential to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known.

Therefore, 1001 North Roxbury Drive does not meet the eligibility requirements under National Register Criterion D and California Register Criterion 4.

Integrity Analysis
The National Register and California Register recognizes a property's integrity through seven aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Eligible properties should retain several, if not most, of these aspects. Both registers require that a resource retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance, and the property must retain the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historical identity. Integrity is based on significance and understanding why a property is important. National Register Bulletin 15 states that “only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity.”152 Location – The subject property has not been moved from its original location since construction.

The property retains historic integrity for its location.

Setting – The property’s historic setting has been moderately altered over time. Changes include the demolition of the original pool in the rear and construction of a new pool in a new location, the addition of a tennis court with adjacent ancillary building, addition of a koi pond, and reconfiguration of the rear grass landscaping and plantings. The setting of the property’s north public-facing primary façade has not been significantly altered. Over time, various large new single-family residences have been constructed along Roxbury Drive, which have replaced the original historic homes on the street. As such, the subject property lacks integrity of setting.

152 U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 94 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
Design, Materials, and Workmanship – As discussed in the detailed construction history and architectural description above, the subject property has undergone renovations and alterations over time. These alterations include the expansion of living space in the rear of the home; the demolition of the home’s original pool; the construction of a new pool in a different location; replacement glass in all windows; a non-original stucco clad dormer window with 6-light aluminum frame and replacement glass protruding out the west-facing side of this volume’s second story; the construction of several chimneys; additions to the interior living space that increased the square footage of the residence; and re-roofing. Most of these changes occurred on the rear of the subject property, which is not visible from the public right of way. The home’s primary elevation has undergone minimal changes over time and original materials and characterdefining features of the home remain largely intact. However, all of the original window glass has been replaced with double-pane glass, the roof has been replaced, new chimneys have been added, and the original brick veneer has been painted white. As a result, the subject property retains its integrity of design, but lacks integrity of materials and workmanship.

Feeling –The subject property continues to express the design aesthetic of its earliest construction due to a lack of significant alteration of design on its public-facing primary north elevation.

Although the window glass has been replaced, the roof has been replaced, new chimneys added, and brick veneer painted white, the home still generally appears as it did when it was first constructed from the public right of way and consequently can convey its historic character.

Therefore, the subject property retains its integrity of feeling.

Association – The property retains the character-defining design features from its period of significance on its public-facing primary elevation. However, as discussed under Criterion A/1 and above under Setting, the subject property lacks integrity of setting, and therefore it cannot convey integrity of association with the early development patterns of the Beverly Hills Tract.

Furthermore, while the subject property could be eligible under Criterion B/2 for association with a significant person, designer Fred Cole, the property lacks integrity to convey its association with the period that Cole occupied the home due to changes to the pool and property setting.

Therefore, the subject property lacks integrity of association.

In conclusion, the property retains integrity of location and design, but lacks integrity of workmanship, materials, setting and association, and therefore does not retain integrity to convey the appearance of its original construction intact. While the property retains integrity of location and design from the public right of way, it lacks sufficient significant associations under the either the National or California Register Criteria to qualify as a historical resource.

City of Beverly Hills
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.

The subject property was constructed in 1942. Therefore, the subject property satisfies this requirement.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 95 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
2) It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period.

The subject property is a large example of the Regency Revival style in Beverly Hills, but is not otherwise a distinctive example. It is a fair example that features several character-defining features of the style, including its paneled wood entrance door with transom window; arched windows; arched wood shutters; broken pediments; gable roof and dormer windows; polygonal projecting bay windows; and mixed cladding of brick, horizontal wood siding, and smooth plaster. While the subject property retains integrity of location and design as viewed from the public right of way, all of the window glass has been replaced, the roof has been replaced, new chimneys have been added, and brick veneer has been painted white. The property setting in the south portion of the grounds has been substantially altered, as has the rear (south) elevation of the house. Therefore, the subject property lacks integrity to convey the appearance of its original construction intact. As a result, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement. 3) It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance.

The Regency Revival style subject property retains its design integrity from its period of significance, 1942, from the public-right-of-way; however, all of the window glass has been replaced with double-pane glass, the roof has been replaced, new chimneys have been added, and brick veneer has been painted white. Furthermore, the property setting in the south portion of the grounds has been substantially altered including the pool (new), construction of a new cabana, porch additions to the pool house, and substantial alterations and additions to the rear (south) elevation of the house. See the “Integrity Analysis” above for a more detailed discussion of all seven aspects of integrity in relation to the subject property. There have been substantial alterations to the home over the years, including expanding living space on the south rear of the home and re-configuring and re-building the property’s pool, but the majority of these alterations have been limited to the south rear of the property, which is not visible from the street. While the subject property lacks integrity to convey the appearance of its original construction intact, it still retains integrity of design when viewed from the public right of way; therefore, the subject property does not satisfy 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 purpose of this article.

The subject property does not appear to impart historic value to the community. Since its construction, the home has been a private residence that has not been open to the community. The home is located in a residential area and the majority of the building is not visible from the street due to the construction of a brick privacy fence and accompanying privacy hedges around the home’s perimeter. The only elevation that is visible from the street is the home’s primary north façade. Therefore, the majority of the community of Beverly Hills has likely never even seen the entirety of the residence and it consequently does not provide significant historic value for the community at large. The residence was home to many wealthy families over the years, but research does not indicate that significant historical or cultural events occurred on the premises that would be important to the local history of the City of Beverly Hills. The residence was Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 96 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
designed by a prolific builder and there are many other, more visible, examples of his work in the community. It therefore has limited value as an example of single-family residential development in Beverly Hills during this time period. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement.

B. In addition to all of those in A., a Landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
1) It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The subject property has not been listed on the National Register. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement.
2) It is an exceptional work by a master architect.

The subject propriety is a fair local example of the Regency Revival style that is primarily impressive only because of its large size. This style was frequently applied to residences on Roxbury Drive and its surrounding streets, including Whittier Drive which has several good examples of the style, two of which were also built by Carleton Burgess. Still, the home is not an exceptional example of its type. Its detailing is fairly typical and simple; similar features exist on other Regency Revival homes in the neighborhood and throughout Beverly Hills. The home is not only large but it is situated on a prominent corner lot. However, its position and size are not sufficient to make it an exceptional example of the Regency Revival style. Furthermore, the home was not built by a master architect, but by builder and contractor Carleton Lyle Burgess. Burgess is currently incorrectly listed on the City of Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects. As is documented in the “Carleton Lyle Burgess, Builder” section of this report, Burgess was not actually an architect. Ample primary evidence shows that he was a contractor and builder, either constructing homes for specific clients or buying lots and improving them with homes to sell. He was never referred to as an architect in any historical newspaper; he was always referred to as a “contractor” or “builder.” The original building permit for the subject property and for five additional Burgess-built homes in the neighborhood (1001 and 1000 North Roxbury Drive; 250 South Peck Drive; and 904 and 907 North Whittier Drive) list him as a contractor, not an architect. Burgess was not a licensed architect, and there have been no published monographs of his work or publications of his work in any architectural periodicals, both of which are current eligibility requirements for listing on the City of Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects.

Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy 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 paragraph, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous.

The subject property does not appear to be associated with a momentous event in a historic personage’s endeavors that affected the history of Beverly Hills, California, or the United States.

While swimwear designer Fred Cole, who occupied the subject property from 1947 – 1954, utilized the home’s south rear backyard and pool to host fashion shows, the home’s original pool Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 97 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
has been demolished and a new pool has been constructed in a different location since Cole’s inhabitancy. As a result, the home’s pool and rear yard configuration do not retain the integrity necessary to convey this historical association. While Cole did use the subject residence for fashion shows, he also was known for his elaborate fashion shows and staged them in other locations as well.153 Other than the fashion shows hosted as the property, research did not identify any significant historical events that took place at the subject property nor did it identify the subject property as the location of a significant life event for any of its various occupants.

Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement. 4) It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence.

The subject property is not an exceptional work of architecture nor has it been identified as an exceptional work via monographs, architectural publications, historic resource surveys, or members of the architectural community. While the home is a fair example of the Regency Revival style, the property is not an exceptional or distinctive example of the style, as discussed in further depth in this report.

The subject property was occupied by several notable individuals, including Adolph B. Spreckels II and Fred Cole. As discussed above, however, although Spreckels II came from a significant family, he himself was not an important figure. He was not involved in the family business and he himself did not appear to have a distinguished career outside the family empire. He was further indicted for violence against his fifth wife, Kay Williams, who also occupied the subject property.

Fred Cole was a prominent swimwear designer of the early to mid-twentieth century. He utilized the subject property’s rear pool area for fashion shows to promote his brand. Although this is a significant connection to the property, the rear pool used by Cole has been demolished and the new pool was built in a different location than the original. As a result, the property does not convey its association with Cole’s business during the productive period of his life. Several other individuals with prominent business connections have lived in the subject property, but their inhabitance of the subject property does not rise to the level of significance required for eligibility as research did not identify any significant event in these individuals’ lives occurring at the home.

There does not appear to be a direct connection between their productive professional periods and the home. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement. 5) It is an iconic property.

The subject property does not meet the City’s definition of an iconic property, as stated in its preservation ordinance, as it does not possess an inextricable association with the City’s image in popular culture or its identity in the world at large as a result of having been visited and photographed frequently by residents and visitors to the City. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement.

153 “Fred Cole Dead,” The New York Times, September 21, 1964.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 98 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
6) The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.

A landmark designation procedure has not been initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner of the property. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this requirement.

Summary
For a property to be eligible for landmark status in Beverly Hills, it must satisfy all of the following:154
It is at least forty five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance
Yes
It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period
No
It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance No 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
No
In addition to satisfying all requirements above, a property must also satisfy at least one of the following:

It is listed on the national register of historic places No It is an exceptional work by a master architect No
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
No
It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence
No
It is an iconic property No
The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.

No
Eligibility Recommendations and Conclusion
As a result of its investigations, ESA recommends the subject property ineligible under all of the applicable federal, state, and local criteria. The subject property does not reflect broad patters of the Beverly Hills Tract (1923-1950) as the area has been substantially altered since its earliest development. New construction of homes that demolished historic resources are common in the neighborhood, as are large additions and substantial alterations to historic residences surrounding the subject property. As a result, the neighborhood cannot convey its historic

154 Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Ord. 15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 99 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
association. The residence is further not associated with any significant historic personages and was not the site of any notable historic event. The large residence and estate is a fair local example of Regency Revival architecture, but it was not designed by a master architect and is a common style in the neighborhood. Its design is not exceptional enough for state or federal listing. Although the residence is a fair local example of the style, it otherwise does not meet the other thresholds of eligibility required for local landmark designation by the City of Beverly Hills. Therefore, ESA recommends the property ineligible for designation under any of the federal, State or local eligibility criteria and recommends that it be assigned a CHR Status Code of 6Z, meaning it is ineligible for listing in the National Register, or in the California Register, or in the City Landmarks Register.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 100 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
References
36 CFR Section 60.2.
"$12,000 Home for Cedros Avenue." San Fernando Valley Times. June 30th, 1938. "Actress Beaten Up, Ex-Husband Held." Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph. August 21, 1953. "Adolph Spreckels, II Goes to Jail." The Courier-Journal. November 3, 1954. "Adolph Spreckels, Sugar Heir, Dies in Phoenix." The Fresno Bee, October 29, 1961. "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 250 South Peck Drive, Permit 8968." City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings. May 15, 1929.
"Application for the Erection of Buildings: 904 North Whittier Drive, Permit 11511." City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings. April 1927.
"Application for the Erection of Buildings: 907 North Whittier Drive, Permit 15367." City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings. July 27, 1937.
"Application for the Erection of Buildings: 1002 North Roxbury Drive, Permit 15632." City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings. November 13, 1937. "Application for the Erection of Buildings: 1000 North Roxbury Drive, Permit 13830." City of Beverly Hills Department of Buildings. December 15, 1935.

Apodaca, Rose. "Legacy of Swimwear Giant Cole Runs Deep." Los Angeles Times. April 15, 2007. https://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ig-lookback15apr15-story.html.

Architectural Resources Group. "Beneficial Plaza and Liberty Park Historic Cultural Monument Nomination." June 2017.

Belgum, Deborah. “Obituary: Anne Cole, Swimwear Designer, 90." California Apparel News.

January 10, 2017. https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2017/jan/10/obituary-anne-coleswimwear-designer-90/.

Beverly Hills Historic Resources Inventory.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/BeverlyHills.pdf.

Beverly Hills Historical Society. "Former Homes of the Great Stars." N.D. https://www.beverlyhillshistoricalsociety.org/bhhs-walking-tours/#stop06.

Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 10, Chapter, 3 Articles 32 and 32.5.

Beverly Hills List of Local Master Architects. Adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission October 14, 2015, revised July 10, 2019.

Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 10, Chapter, 3 Articles 32 and 32.5.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 101 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
"Beverly Hills Resident to Erect $30,000 Home." West Los Angeles Independent. October 7, 1938.

Blake, Matthew, "Beverly Hills Flats Home Sells for $40M, Reported Record for Area." The Real Deal. September 23, 2020. https://therealdeal.com/la/2020/09/23/beverly-hills-flats-homesells-for-40m-reported-record-for-area/. "Brand New." Los Angeles Times. November 11, 1940.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4852(c) which can be accessed on the internet at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov.

California State Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin #8, User’s Guide to the California Historical Resources Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. November 2004.
"Carleton Lyle Burgess Obituary." Los Angeles Times. January 15, 1994.

City of Beverly Hills. "Historic Properties Project Log, Section 2: Master Architect Projects." N.D.http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=3407&meta_id =336072.

City of Beverly Hills. "List of Local Master Architects. " Version 3.1. Revised July 10, 2019. https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/11532334261958763470/MasterArchite ctList_Version3-1_active.pdf.

City of Beverly Hills. "Log of Projects Involving Master Architect Properties." 2015. https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=52&clip_id=4586&meta_id=2 75163.

City of Beverly Hills. Residential Design Style Catalogue, City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. 2008.

City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission. “Ordinance No. 12-O-2617, Resolution No. 3: Resolution of the Cultural Heritage Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Recommending that the City Council Adopt a List of Local Master Architects.” City of Beverly Hills, 2012.

City of Beverly Hills Department of Building and Safety.

City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. “Cultural Heritage Commission Report: Revision to List of Local Master Architects.” City of Beverly Hills. October 14, 2015.

City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. “[DRAFT] List of Local Master Architects.” City of Beverly Hills, 2012.

City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. “List of Local Master Architects.” Adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission 10-14-15, Revised 7-10-19. Version 3.1. https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/11532334261958763470/MasterArchite ctList_Version3-1_active.pdf.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 102 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. "Planning Commission Report: 907 Whittier Drive." City of Beverly Hills. February 8, 2018.
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=3660&meta_id=35 6142.

City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. "Planning Commission Report: Replacement of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Article 32 and Amendments to Article 32.5 Regarding Historic Preservation." December 11, 2014.
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2202&meta_id=24 8127.
"Coincidence Has Spreckels, Ex Aboard Same Airplane." The Miami News. September 22, 1954. "Corporations: Sugar Plum." Time. June 27, 1949.
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,800482,00.html. "David Bohnett." N.D. Baroda Ventures. https://www.barodaventures.com/david-bohnett. "Deals Add up to $141,500." Los Angeles Times. September 27, 1953. "Fifth Wife Sues Spreckels Heir." Los Angeles Times. September 13, 1951. "Fred Cole Dead." The New York Times. September 21, 1964. "Glamorous Beverly Hills Traditional Estate." Linda May Properties. N.D. https://www.lindamay.com/property/glamorous-beverly-hills-traditional-estate/.

Goers, Heather and Christine Lazzaretto. "Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the Shepard Residence," Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources, November 3, 2016, https://planning.lacity.org/StaffRpt/CHC/2016/11-03- 2016/4_ShepherdRes_Final.pdf.

GPA Consulting. "Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Period Revival, 1919- 1950." Prepared for the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning. January 2016. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/5997064e-8a5b-4bd4-a26dc6009582e847/PeriodRevival_1919-1950.pdf.

Hess, Alan. Forgotten Modern: California Houses 1940-1970. Gibbs Smith: Salt Lake City, 2007.

Hopper, Hedda. "Spreckels Heir Marries Beverly Hills Beauty." Los Angeles Times. February 1, 1954.
"Joseph N. Mitchell, 82; Benefactor, Head of Family Insurance Firm." Los Angeles Times.

December 9, 2004.

Johnson Heumann Research Associates. Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey. Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills, 1985-1986.

Kiszla, Cameron. "Beverly Hills Designates Evans House as Historic." Beverly Press. February 4, 2021. https://beverlypress.com/2021/02/beverly-hills-designates-evans-house-as-historic/.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 103 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
"Kohl." Los Angeles Business Journal. June 9, 1997.

Lopez, Matt. “City OK’s List of Master Architects.” Beverly Hills Courier. January 1, 2010.

McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knope, 2013.

McAvoy, Christy. "Historic Cultural Monument Nomination: Hunt House." Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources. January 14, 2014. https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/files/issues/planning.lacity.org_StaffRpt_ CHC_01-16-14_CHC-2013-3539.pdf.
"Mrs. Carleton Burgess Plans Two Luncheons." Los Angeles Times. April 7, 1938. "Mary Ann Naylor Obituary." The Kerrville Daily Times. December 30, 2003. "New-Open." Los Angeles Times. August 30, 1939.

Norwood, Arlisha. "Lucille Ball, 1911-1989." National Women's History Museum. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/lucille-ball.

Oliver, Myrna. "Patrick J. Frawley Jr.; Business Magnate." Los Angeles Times. November 5, 1998.

PCR Services Corporation. Historic Resources Survey Report: City of Beverly Hills. City of Beverly Hills, 2004.
"Permits for Week up to $140,000 as Local Building Boom Continues." West Los Angeles Independent. January 31, 1936.
"Plans Started for $25,000 Residence." Los Angeles Times. September 15, 1935.

PRC Section 5024.1(a).

PRC Section 5024.1(b).

PRC Section 5024.1(d).

PRC Section 5024.1(e)
Price, Steven. “Over the Top: The Architectural History of Trousdale Estates Beverly Hills,” Nourmand & Associates. http://www.nourmand.com/posts/overthetop1469cr.

Ralston, Hugh. "War Widow Sues Mate's Mother for Half Million." Hollywood Citizen-News.

July 2, 1947.
"RealD Co-Founder Joshua Greer to Transition into Advisory Role and Remain on Board of Directors." BusinessWire. May 19, 2011.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110519005339/en/RealD-Co-FounderJoshua-Greer-to-Transition-into-Advisory-Role-and-Remain-on-Board-of-Director.

Regent Properties, "Glendale Marketplace." N.D. https://www.regentproperties.com/californiaglendale-marketplace.

Historical Resources Assessment
1001 North Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills, California 104 ESA / D202100618.00 Historical Resources Assessment October 2021
"Rich Sugar Heir Given Jail Term.” The News and Observer. January 9th, 1954. "Residence Sold by Groucho Marx." Los Angeles Times. April 29, 1945. "Residence to be Built." Los Angeles Times. August 18, 1935.

Ripon High School. The Tiger Yearbook. Published by the class of 1919. Ripon, Wisconsin:
1919. https://riponlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/RHS1919c.pdf.

Shepard, Richard. "Jack Benny, 80, Dies of Cancer on Coast." The New York Times, December 28, 1974.
“Spreckels Collapses, Dies at 49." Fort Lauderdale News. October 29th, 1961. "Spreckels Heir Dies After Fall." Fort Collins Coloradoan. October 29th, 1961.

Spreckels Sugar Company, "Spreckels Sugar History." N.D. http://www.spreckelssugar.com/history.aspx.
"Sugar Heir's Re-Arrest is Readied in Beating." Deseret News and Telegram. August 27, 1953.

Untitled. Santa Ana Register. April 8, 1940.

U. S. Death Index, 1940-1997. Ancestry.com [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000
U. S. Federal Census, 1920, 1930 and 1940. Ancestry.com [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA:

Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000
U.S., Los Angeles, California Marriage Records, 1950-1952. Ancestry.com Ancestry.com [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000 U.S. Voter Registration Records, 1924, 1930, 1936, 1942. Ancestry.com Ancestry.com [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000 U. S. World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947. Ancestry.com [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2000
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. "Regency Revival, 1935-1950." State of Washington. N.D. https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historicbuildings/architectural-style-guide/regency-revival. "Wedding Announcements - Gloria Dale Findlay and Robert Howard Naylor." Daily News.

September 27th, 1943.
"Wife Divorces Building Contractor." Los Angeles Times. July 17, 1948.

Appendix 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.

Page 2 ends

Beverly Hills City CouncilJune 21, 2022

Beverly Hills City Council
June 21, 2022