HRTR

HISTORICAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT

FOR THE BAHIA RESORT HOTEL

998 WEST MISSION BAY DRIVE

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92109

998 West Mission Bay Drive

San Diego, California 92109

Report Submitted To:

The City of San Diego

Project Management

Development Services Department

1222 First Avenue, MS-302

San Diego, California 92101-4153

Report Prepared For:

BH Partnership

998 West Mission Bay Drive

San Diego, California 92109

Report Prepared By:

Scott A. Moomjian

Attorney at Law

5173 Waring Road, #145

San Diego, California 92120

(619) 230-1770

December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

Report Organization 2

Project Area 3

Project Personnel 3

Project Setting 3

Physical Project Setting 3

Project Area and Vicinity 4

Historical Overview Of The Mission Beach/Mission Bay

Communities 6

Methods and Results 9

Archival Research 9

Field Survey 10

Description of Surveyed Resource 10

Significance Evaluation 13

Integrity Evaluation 13

Application of San Diego Historical Resources Board (HRB)

Application of National and California Register Criteria 25

Findings and Conclusions 32

Impacts Discussion 32

Application of City of San Diego CEQA Significance Criteria 32

Application of CEQA 33

Mitigation Measures 35

Conclusion 35

Bibliography 35

Appendices

Appendix A: Building Development Information

•Commercial-Industrial Building Records

•Sewer Connection Record

•Construction/Building Permits

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Appendix B: Ownership and Occupant Information

•Recorded Legal Documents

•City Directory Listings of Occupants

Appendix C: Maps

•City of San Diego, 800:1 Scale Engineering

•United States Geological Survey Map (U.S.G.S La Jolla Quadrangle)

•Miscellaneous Map 36

Appendix D: DPR Forms

Appendix E: Preparer’s Qualifications

HISTORICAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT

FOR THE BAHIA RESORT HOTEL

998 WEST MISSION BAY DRIVE

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92109

Executive Summary

This Historical Resource Technical Report (HRTR) was prepared at the request of BH

Partnership in order to determine the potential historical and/or architectural significance

of the Bahia Resort Hotel complex (collectively identified as the “Property”) in the San

Diego community of Mission Bay, California according to National Register of Historic

Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and City of San Diego Historical

Resources Board designation criteria. The study is consistent with the adopted City of

San Diego, Historical Resources Board (HRB), Historical Resource Technical Report

Guidelines and Requirements (Land Development Manual, Historical Resources

Guidelines, Appendix E, Part 1.2, February 2009) and the adopted Guidelines for the

Application of Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria (Land Development

Manual, Historical Resources Guidelines, Appendix E, Part 2, August 27, 2009). This

HRTR was undertaken in conjunction with the Bahia Resort Hotel expansion

project which was analyzed in the 1990s, included in the 1994 Mission Bay Park

Master Plan Update (MBPMP), and approved by the Coastal Commission as part of

the LCP Amendment in 1997, to determine whether the Property is historically

and/or architecturally significant. The project proposes the removal of the existing

326 guest rooms on site and the redevelopment and expansion of hotel facilities to

accommodate up to 600 new guest rooms anticipated by the MBPMP.

The underlying real property on which the Bahia Resort Hotel is located is irregularly

“C”-shaped and consists of approximately 15.50 acres. It is owned by the City of San

Diego and is subject to a lease with BH Partnership. The Lease Agreement was filed

with the County of San Diego in May 1966 as Document Number 697319, and defines

the approximately 15.50 acres in two parcels comprising, “[t]hat portion of the tidelands

and submerged or filled lands of Mission Bay, formerly False Bay, according to Map

thereof made by James Pascoe in 1870, a copy of which Map was filed in the Office of

the County Recorder of San Diego, November 14, 1921, and is known as Miscellaneous

Map 36, all being in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California….”

The corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Number (being a possessory interest) is 760-030-

01-00.

The Bahia Resort Hotel was originally constructed as the Bahia “Motor” Hotel in 1953.

Between 1953-1985, the Property grew as new hospitality buildings and structures were

developed and constructed on site. Most of the earlier buildings tended to reflect a

Modern Contemporary style of architecture. More recent buildings reflect a Spanish

Eclectic influence. However, from the 1950s through the 1980s, all of the buildings were

essentially modernized and updated through various modifications and alterations.

Today, there are largely nine (9) buildings, or groups of buildings, that comprise the

Bahia Resort Hotel. In their current appearance, the buildings as well as the overall site

do not retain a sufficient degree of original integrity.

Historical research indicates that the Property is not historically and/or architecturally

significant. The Property is not associated with any important events or individuals at the

local, state or national levels; does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a style,

type, period, or method of Modern Contemporary or Spanish Eclectic construction; and

does not represent the notable work of a “master” architect, builder, or craftsman, or

important, creative individual.

As a Property which is not historically or architecturally significant under local, state, or

national significance criteria, it is not eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic

Resources Inventory, or the San Diego Historical Resources Board Register.

Introduction

Report Organization

This HRTR was prepared in order to determine the potential historical and/or

architectural significance of the Bahia Resort Hotel complex (collectively identified as

the “Property”), located at 998 West Mission Bay Drive in the San Diego community of

Mission Bay, California as part of the Bahia Resort Hotel expansion project. The

Property, including the site and existing buildings, were largely constructed between

1953-1985. Most of the buildings are, therefore, at least 45 years of age and may be

considered potential historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA). The Property was researched and evaluated as a potential historic resource in

accordance with City of San Diego Historical Resources Board (HRB) local criteria;

California Register of Historical Resources (State) criteria; and National Register of

Historic Places (National) criteria by Scott A. Moomjian, Esq., Historic Property

Consultant, from July-December 2014. The Property was determined by the present

study not to be historically and/or architecturally significant.

The HRTR includes a Title Page; Table of Contents; Executive Summary; Introduction

(Report Organization; Project Area; Project Personnel); Project Setting (Physical Project

Setting; Project Area and Vicinity; Historical Overview of the Mission Beach/Mission

Bay community); Methods and Results (Archival Research; Field Survey; and

Description Of Surveyed Resource with current photographs); Significance Evaluation;

Findings and Conclusions; Bibliography; and Appendices. The Appendices consist of

Building Development Information (Commercial-Industrial Building Records; Sewer

Connection Record; and Construction/Building Permits); Ownership and Occupant

Information (Recorded Legal Documents; and San Diego City Directory Occupant

Listings); Maps (City of San Diego, 800:1 Scale Engineering; U.S.G.S. La Jolla

Quadrangle; and Miscellaneous Map 36); California Department of Parks & Recreation

(DPR) Inventory Forms; and Report Preparer Qualifications (Resume).

Project Area

The Property is located in the San Diego community of Mission Bay, California. It

consists of approximately 15.50 acres of developed property (approximately 675,180

total square feet of space) and corresponds to Assessor’s Parcel Number 760-030-01-00.

The Property is located in a built, commercial coastal environment along the north side of

the 900 block of Mission Bay Drive. The Property is irregularly “C”-shaped and is

bounded by Mission Bay, Santa Barbara Cove, and docking to the west; Bahia Point and

Mission Bay to the north; Mission Bay and Ventura Cove to the east, and Mission Bay

Drive to the south.

The Mission Beach community exists directly west of the Property. The Mission Beach

area was developed beginning in the 1920s, with tremendous growth occurring after the

Second World War (post-1945). This area today consists of a mix of residential

dwellings (single-family residences and multi-family structures), as well as commercial

buildings. Over the years, there has been an increase in new development with the

construction of new, larger residential homes and the remodeling of existing homes, all in

very close proximity to the Property. Overall, architectural styles in and around the

Property are extremely eclectic in nature and generally reflect a mix of Spanish, French,

Italian, Mediterranean, and Modern/Contemporary designs. To the east of the Property

exists Mission Bay, Mission Bay Park, and public lands. These areas include open space

and provide for a number of different recreational uses.

Project Personnel

Project personnel included Scott A. Moomjian, Esq., Historic Property Consultant, who

conducted the field survey, archival research, and prepared the final report with its

findings and conclusions. All chain of title research was conducted by California Lot

Book, Inc.

Project Setting

Physical Project Setting

The Property is located in the San Diego community of Mission Bay, California.

Specifically, the Property is located in the Tidelands area within a built, commercial

coastal environment. The Property borders the Mission Beach community to west that

today includes a mix of various residential dwellings (single-family residences and multi-

family structures), as well as commercial buildings. Overall, architectural styles in and

around the Property are extremely eclectic in nature and generally reflect a mix of

Spanish, French, Italian, Mediterranean, and Modern/Contemporary designs. To the east

of the Property exists Mission Bay, Mission Bay Park, and public lands. These areas

include open space and provide for a number of different recreational uses.

Project Area and Vicinity

The Property upon which the Bahia Resort Hotel is today located, Assessor’s Parcel 760-

030-01-00, was acquired by the City of San Diego from the State of California in 1945.

Historically, the Property was part of a much larger 4,500 acres of shallow water, tidal

flats, and low-lying lands. Beginning in 1946, dredging operations commenced in order

to transform the area as a whole into a harbor for small boats, recreational activities for

aquatic sports, and commercial areas for resort hotels, motor hotels, motels, hotels, trailer

parks, and food establishments. These dredging efforts continued until the mid-1960s.

In January 1953, William D. Evans and Lucy E. Cooper, representing San Diego and

Long Beach hotel interests, submitted a $595,000 bid to the City of San Diego for the

“construction of 58 units, costing $150,000 in the first six months” at the location of the

property. At the time, it was known as “Gleason Point.” Subsequent construction

involved an additional 42 units at a cost of $110,000, with 100 other units costing

$275,000. The proposal also included the construction of a restaurant and cocktail

lounge at a cost of $60,000. For the first and second years of the lease, a minimum of

$1,350 and $2,400 was guaranteed, respectively, to the City, with an additional $2,500 in

the third year, and $2,500-$4,000 in the fourth and succeeding years, depending upon bay

dredging. The Evans/Cooper bid was ultimately selected over a competing proposal

submitted by Donald B. Ayers of Los Angeles.

In March 1953, William Evans announced that construction had started on a planned 302-

unit resort hotel on 12 acres of land leased from the City on Gleason Point, with the first

48 units scheduled for completion by July 1, 1953. Evans named the development the

“Bahia Hotel” and it would later include “a large restaurant, cocktail bar, salt water

swimming pool, cabanas, and boating facilities.” Plans for construction in 1952 included

the construction of the restaurant and bar along with at least 100 dwelling units.

Historical research indicates that the first structures constructed as part of the Bahia Hotel

were ten groupings of one-story hotel units along the west and east elevations of the

Property. Unfortunately, no Notices of Completion, Lot Block Book pages, original

water or sewer connection records, or Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were available for

the Property. However, a 1953 date of construction is supported by Commercial-

Industrial Building Records as well as a 1953 aerial photograph which depicts a total of

six groups of buildings with what appear to be approximately 38 individual hotel units

either completed or under construction. Construction began along the west elevation and

then continued to the east elevation of the site. Historic photographs taken in 1953 depict

individual hotel units having been completed during this year. Further, the construction

was reported in a June 1953 San Diego Union newspaper article which stated,

“First of the big structures in the Mission Bay Park expansion program, Bill

Evans’ Bahia Motor Hotel, is rapidly nearing completion. Located on Gleason

Point, near the old Amusement Center, the resort will be ready for tenants this

week end. Still to be completed are the administration building, café and

swimming pools.”

While the identities of the original architect and builder could not be ascertained, it is

believed that Evans designed the 1953 hotel buildings and had them constructed under

his direction.

One month after the completion of the initial Bahia Motor Hotel buildings in July 1953,

William Evans announced plans for the start of construction of the coffee shop and

restaurant. By August 1953, it was reported that 50 hotel units had been completed and

were open and that the investment had totaled $250,000. Further, the restaurant appears

to have been completed by this time and would later be expanded to include a cocktail

lounge, swimming pool, and administration building and lounge, all “located at the

entrance to the development off Ventura Blvd.” At this time, West Mission Boulevard

was known as “Ventura Boulevard.”

Between 1953-1962, additional buildings and structures were erected at the Bahia Motor

Hotel. These buildings were designed and constructed by William Evans. Review of

Commercial-Industrial Building Records and Building Permit Applications indicates that

the restaurant and office building were built in 1954 at a cost of approximately $22,000.

This building was later added onto and remodeled in 1956, 1959, 1963, 1971, and 1984.

A historic photograph taken in 1954 shows that this building was originally rectangular in

shape and featured a very low-pitched, side-gabled roof with large eave overhang, and

two inverted projecting roof sections along the west and south elevations. In addition, a

free-standing neon sign attached to a brick base at the entrance to the property was built

along the southeast elevation identified the site as the “Bahia Motor Hotel” with

Restaurant, Coffee Shop, and Cocktails. Other buildings/structures constructed between

1953-1956, included a Banquet building (1955) located near the center of the property

(later converted into Health Club with attached Utility building in 1963); a swimming

pool located adjacent to the banquet building (1955) which was later remodeled in 1961,

1969, and 1985; and a Maintenance Shop near the center of the Property (1957). Historic

photographs taken of the swimming pool and banquet building in 1956 show their

original appearances at that time. Also in 1956, an additional group of two-story hotel

units was constructed along the northwest elevation of the property. A San Diego Union

newspaper article from December 1956 documented the issuance of the building permit

for these additional 32 hotel units. In 1958, a two-story hotel building was constructed

toward the central/northern section of the property and, several years later, additional

hotel units were built.

By July 1964, the Bahia Motor Hotel had become known as the “Bahia Resort Motor

Hotel.” At this time, the San Diego Union reported that construction had been completed

for an additional 24 “new motel units” at a cost of approximately $200,000, bringing the

total number of units to 177 “most of them cottages facing the beach front on a finger

peninsula that extends into Mission Bay.” The newspaper article referred to the

construction of the “[t]he new addition” as “a two-story building at the left of the

restaurant, facing Ventura Boulevard.” The article further noted that, “The Bahai was

one of the original resort developments in Mission Bay Park, and when it first opened

consisted of 50 rental units, restaurant and cocktail lounge. Additions were made in each

of the four years from 1955 through 1958 and again in 1963, spreading over a 15-acre

plus site….There is yet room for later additions of more than 100 units, although there

are no definite plans when this may be undertaken.”

By 1966, the Bahia Resort Motor Hotel had expanded once again with the construction of

a four-story hotel building along the north elevation. This building was designed by

architect Victor Meyer and built by the Trepte Construction Company. One year later,

Meyer and Trepte combined to design and build another large hotel building. This

structure, located along the southeast elevation, was five-stories in height and opened in

July 1967. This provided the hotel with an additional 85 rooms and banquet facilities.

One of the last structures to be erected on site was a two-story building at the northeast

elevation. This Spanish Eclectic style building was built to “house a storage and

receiving facility and the administrative offices for the existing hotel complex.” It was

1985. Other various, assorted modifications and alterations to the Bahia Resort Hotel

over the years include, but are not limited to, the construction of docks, floats, ramps, and

piers along the southwest elevation (1956); the construction of an addition along the west

side of the restaurant/office building (1969); the remodeling of the front entrance and

carport area in a Spanish Eclectic style with a new portico with skylights (1983); and

other site improvements such as fencing, paving, painting, and extensive landscaping.

Today, the Property is leased to BH Partnership by the City of San Diego and operates as

the Bahia Resort Hotel.

Historical Overview Of The Mission Beach/Mission Bay Communities

The Property is located within San Diego’s Mission Bay community. However, it is

located just east of the neighboring Mission Beach community. Since the Mission Beach

community developed earlier than that of Mission Bay, and the Property is located in

such close proximity to Mission Beach, it is appropriate to discuss the development of

both communities.

Historically, Mission Beach was one of the last beach communities established in San

Diego. In 1914, perhaps prompted by the recent developmental success of Ocean Beach

and Coronado, a syndicate of San Diego businessmen headed by noted capitalist John D.

Spreckels, George L. Barney, Charles W. Fox, J.H. McKie, and Thomas A. Rife formed

the “Bay Shore Railroad Company” (BSRC). The BSRC was responsible for extending

an electric rail line from pre-existing stations in Point Loma and Ocean Beach in 1916.

In 1914, Spreckels and Barney filed the Mission Beach subdivision map with the San

Diego County Recorder’s Office. This map planned for a residential resort community,

extending sixty blocks from the southernmost point of Mission Beach north to Pacific

Beach Drive. Progressive for its time, provisions were included for separate housing

within each residential area requiring that all homes within the area have specified

minimum construction costs. Commercially zoned areas were planned at various

distances along the main street (Mission Boulevard) with the largest one centered at the

mid-point of the peninsula. Another important aspect of the subdivision was the

inclusion of a large recreational attraction as well as an area initially zoned for a “tent

city” (similar to the one Spreckels had developed earlier in Coronado).

While early promotional literature on the Mission Beach development touted the physical

environment, climate, and recreational pursuits of the community, early construction was

delayed for a number of years due to financial difficulties as the Mission Beach syndicate

invested considerable sums of capital in advertising. Early lot sales in the subdivision

were slow due to a variety of different factors, and as a result, appears to have delayed

the process of public work construction. Ultimately, Spreckels was forced to sell some of

his Mission Beach interest. In 1916, J.M. Asher purchased the large block of land which

Spreckels had put up for sale. This property, located in what is known today as “Old

Mission Beach,” was the northern part of the community. Asher constructed a number of

tent houses, built a bathhouse, a pier (on Mission Bay), a large pool for children, and took

over operation of the single-car street railroad. Because Asher kept these business

interests going during the First World War, he was called the “Father of Mission Beach.”

In 1922, “Tent City” which had been the focal point of the Mission Beach community

came to an end when the City of San Diego implemented a new health code which

forbade non-permanent structures. After the implementation of the new health code,

owners began to build upon their own lots, with many of the oldest structures in Mission

Beach today located in Old Mission Beach.

During the early 1920s, the San Diego business climate began to improve. Although

Spreckels had not been recognized as a member of the Mission Beach syndicate in early

sales literature and had not been as active as other founding members, he became the

prominent personality in the growth of the community during the 1920s. His plan for

developing Mission Beach was based upon selling residential lots, modernizing and

improving public transportation for the community, and constructing a large amusement

center. In order to promote home sales, Spreckels directed sales of lots to two groups of

buyers--speculators and permanent home seekers. A 1922 advertisement which attracted

speculators stated that an investor could put down $35 on a lot and pay as little as $20 a

month on lots that ranged in price from $400 to $1,500. Permanent home buyers were

attracted to literature which proclaimed the virtues of a healthy environment which was

safe for children. A study of Mission Beach demographics indicates that the majority of

individuals who lived in Mission Beach in 1926 were blue-collar (majority), including

carpenters, shoe repairmen, plasterers, mechanics, and painters; low-level white-collar,

including salesmen, and small shopkeepers; and skilled (minority), including dentists,

nurses, doctors, architects, city inspectors, and managers.

By directing sales of residential lots to speculators and permanent home seekers, the

settlement pattern of Mission Beach was established in the 1920s and 1930s. Those

buyers who were interested in building homes as permanent residences built on their lots

in many cases. In other instances, many lots were held unimproved for speculation by

investment buyers. This situation caused Mission Beach residential areas to have a

“checkerboard” pattern of development, with homes along the courts and side streets

interspersed with vacant lots. This pattern was still evident after the Second World War

in South Mission Beach. The predominant method by which homes were erected in

Mission Beach was through construction performed by the homeowner directly, or the

homeowner contracting to pay a builder for home construction. Even though Mission

Beach still had many vacant lots in both the residential and commercial areas during the

1930s, slow growth continued throughout the decade.

By the beginning of the Second World War, Mission Beach had become an established

community in San Diego. Most services were being provided and many homes were

owned as permanent residences. From 1940-1948, many vacant lots were used for new

residential and commercial structures. Mission Beach continued to be a popular place to

reside during the 1940s through the 1950s, as it was during this period that Mission

Beach came to be the high density neighborhood that it is today. During this time, the

development of Mission Bay Aquatic Park contributed to the growth of Mission Beach.

The construction and dredging of the bay provided four additional features to the Mission

Beach landscape, including Santa Clara Point, El Carmel Point, Ventura Point, and the

Mission Beach jetty. With the completion of dredging in 1961 and the construction of

the park, the promises of early Mission Beach developers for recreation on the bay were

finally fulfilled. Over this period, many residential properties were converted or

constructed exclusively as rentals.

During the early 1960s, Mission Beach experienced housing problems associated with

overcrowding and inadequate housing. In the 1960s, an influx of residents, many of

whom had values which conflicted with the rest of society, moved into cottages,

apartments, and garages in North Mission Beach, the oldest neighborhood in the

community. Crowded and rundown rentals became the center of the local counterculture.

During 1971, a crackdown by county health officials and city zoning, fire, and housing

inspectors found numerous violations of city codes. In the mid-1970s, the

implementation of a new community plan helped alleviate some of these problems.

Today, although overcrowding and inadequate housing are still problems facing Mission

Beach, new construction is occurring while other buildings are being renovated. This

trend, an evolution in the history of Mission Beach, has created a community composed

of an interesting blend of physical and cultural features.

The Mission Bay community is located south of Pacific Beach and east of Mission

Beach. Mission Bay is a saltwater bay or lagoon which is today part of the recreational

Mission Bay Park. When Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo set foot in California in 1542, he

landed at Ballast Point. He dispatched a small scouting vessel to explore the bay to the

north of Point Loma. The vessel promptly became lost in the confusing labyrinth of

channels, mudflats, sand bars and tules. Cabrillo named this tidal marsh area “False

Bay.” Later, the name was changed to “Mission Bay.”

Over the ensuing years, the San Diego River had historically shifted its terminus back

and forth between San Diego Bay to the South and False Bay to the north. During the

1920s, the river began to empty primarily into San Diego Bay, causing worries that the

San Diego Harbor might silt up. In 1852, the United States Army Corps of Engineers

constructed a dike along the south side of the river to prevent water from flowing into

San Diego Bay. This made Mission Bay an estuary outlet for the San Diego River

drainage. Unfortunately, the dike failed within two years. In 1877, the City of San Diego

erected a permanent dam and straightened the river channel to the sea, giving the river its

present configuration.

During the late 1800s, some recreational development began in Mission Bay including

the construction of hunting and fishing facilities. However, these facilities were

destroyed by flooding that took place years later. Steps toward developing Mission Bay

did not occur until the 1930s when civic leaders occasional discussed its development.

During this time, the area remained a vast expanse of mudflats, visited only by fishermen

and wild life.

The first concrete step toward the development of Mission Bay was its incorporation into

the California state park system in 1929. The second concrete step was taken in 1945

when the City of San Diego received title to the tidelands and submerged lands from the

State of California. Also in 1945, San Diego voters approved a $2 million bond issue,

and the City appropriated another $1.5 million of post-war funds toward development of

the bay.

In early 1946, the first dredging operation commenced. This work occurred in

accordance with City Planning Director Glenn Rick’s Mission Bay Plan which called for

a series of coves, inlets and points to be developed. Within a few months, the area of

land now known as “Gleason Point” was created. Today, the Property occupies Gleason

Point which is now known as “Bahia Point.” This area was an island located a short

distance offshore from Bayside Walk until the dredger built the connecting neck between

it and the Mission Beach shore. The point was named after Matt I. Gleason who served

as a member of the state park commission, and was of great assistance to San Diego in

bringing about the transfer of Mission Bay to the City. Also in 1946, Congress

appropriated funds in its rivers and harbors bill to participate in the bay dredging and the

state government appropriated $3 million for the San Diego River flood control channel.

Three jetties were built under the Federal program, forming the outlet for the San Diego

River Floodway and entrance for Mission Bay (the down-coast and middle jetties in 1949

and 1949, and the north jetty in 1949 and 1950). Additional work included the

completion of the San Diego River Floodway in 1952.

Dredging activities in Mission Bay continued throughout the 1950s and into the early

1960s. In 1961, the last of the dredging was completed. From 1962-1965, construction

in the Mission Bay are occurred at a slow pace. Improvements built during this period

included road construction, shore revetment, parking lots, rest rooms, utilities to various

points, and landscaping. Today, Mission Bay functions as a major recreational aquatic

park.

Methods and Results

Archival Research

The archival research for this HRTR included, but was not necessarily limited to,

obtaining the Commercial-Industrial Building Records from the San Diego County

Assessor’s/Recorder’s Office; recorded legal documents obtained by California Lot

Book, Inc.; City of San Diego water and sewer department records research; building

permit application research at the City of San Diego building records department

(Development Services Center Building); San Diego City Directories, Sanborn Fire

Insurance Maps, vertical files, and the San Diego Union index and newspaper articles at

the San Diego Public Library, California Room; the San Diego History Center archives

and photographic collection; local, state, and federal inventories/surveys/database

material; personal research/archival material in possession of Scott A. Moomjian, Esq.;

and standard and authoritative sources related to local history, architecture, and building

development information.

Field Survey

The field survey work was conducted by Scott A. Moomjian, Esq. on July 28, 2014. An

intensive survey of the subject Property and surrounding neighborhood was undertaken

during this time. The Property was recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 forms

according to instructions and publications produced by the California Office of Historic

Preservation (See Attachment D).

Description of Surveyed Resource

The Property largely consists of nine (9) hotel buildings and/or ancillary structures that

collectively comprise the Bahia Resort Hotel. In addition to these structures, there is a

swimming pool toward the south elevation, as well as docks, boats, ramps, and piers

along the west elevation. Included within the eight hotel buildings are (1) twelve

“groups” of one and two-story hotel rental units (with multiple units per group),

stretching along the west, center, and east elevations (constructed in 1953, 1956, and

1963); (2) a one and two-story restaurant and main office building along the south

elevation (constructed in 1954 and subsequently expanded and modified in 1956, 1959,

1963, 1971, and 1984); (3) a two-story hotel building adjacent to the restaurant/office

building along the southwest elevation (1964); (4) a five-story hotel building adjacent to

the restaurant/office building along the southeast elevation (1967); (5) a Health

Club/Utility building located toward the south elevation (remodeled in 1963 from a

Banquet building constructed in 1955); (6) a maintenance shop located toward the center

of the property (1957); (7) a two-story hotel building constructed toward the north

elevation (1958); (8) a four-story hotel building constructed along the north elevation

(1966); and (9) a two-story storage/receiving and office building at the northeast

elevation (1985).

(1) 12 Groups Of Hotel Rental Units

These rental buildings were constructed in a Modern Contemporary style in 1953, 1956,

and 1963. Over the years, they were modernized and updated with contemporary

amenities. While each individual “group” varies in unit number, the groups are generally

staggered in configuration and are set parallel to either Mission Bay on the west or

parallel to Gleason Road on the east. Each rental unit is rectangular in shape. Of

standard, wood-frame and concrete block construction, the units are set on a reinforced

concrete foundation with concrete floor. One story units feature shed roofs with wide

eave overhang, composition roofing, and have their concrete block exteriors finished with

stucco or board and batten. Two story units feature flat roofs with wide eave overhang,

composition roofing, and a combination of stucco and board and batten. Windows

largely consist of replacement metal casement or fixed with screens. Sliding glass doors

have also been replaced with contemporary variants. These units have kitchens and

bathrooms, and overall, appear to be in good condition.

(2) Restaurant/Office Building

This one and two-story building was constructed in 1954 and subsequently expanded and

modified in 1956, 1959, 1963, 1971, and 1984. Today, the building is irregular in shape

and consists of approximately 10,311 total square feet of space. Of standard wood frame

construction, the building is set on a reinforced concrete foundation with concrete floors.

It features a flat and shed roof with composition roof cover, and a combination exterior

composed of stucco, brick and stone. Along the main south and east elevations, a stucco

portico was added to serve as an entry car port. The north elevation of the building is

two-stories and is decidedly contemporary in style. Overall, the building appears to be in

good condition.

(3) Hotel Building

This two-story building was constructed in 1964 and was modified and altered over the

years to reflect its current Spanish Eclectic appearance. The building is rectangular in

shape and consists of approximately 7,314 total square feet of space. Of standard 8”

concrete block construction, the building is set on a concrete foundation with concrete

floors. The roof is moderately pitched and side-gabled with wide eave overhang,

exposed roof rafters, and red, Mission tile. The exterior consists of stucco. Along the

main (south) elevation, there are three projecting front-gables with decorative detailing.

Between the front-gables are arched sections at the second story with railing. Overall, the

building appears to be in good condition.

(4) Hotel Building

This five-story hotel building was constructed in 1967. It is rectangular in shape and

consists of approximately 199,800 total square feet of space. Of standard construction,

the building features concrete block walls and is set on a reinforced concrete foundation

with concrete floors. The roof is flat with no eave overhang. Along the main west and

east elevations, the building has a series of 11 recessed porches or balconies sections with

sliding glass doors and metal railing. Each section along the fifth floor of the building

features four fixed vertical glass panes. Overall, the building appears to be in good

condition.

(5) Health Club/Utility Building

This one-story structure was originally built in 1955 as a banquet building. It was

remodeled in 1958 and, in 1963, remodeled again in conversion to a Health Club. The

Health Club portion exists along the southern section of the building, and along the

northern section, the building serves as a utility room with linen, filter, heater, and

storage areas. The building is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 2,649 total

square feet of space. Of wood frame construction, the building is set on a reinforced

concrete foundation with concrete floors. The building features a flat and shed roof with

composition roof cover, eave overhang and stucco, board and batten, and brick exterior.

Overall, the building appears to be in good condition.

(6) Maintenance Shop

This one-story building was constructed in 1957. The building is “L”-shaped and consists

of approximately 1,690 total square feet of space. Of wood frame construction, the

building is set on a reinforced concrete foundation with concrete floors. The building

features a shed roof with composition roof cover, eave overhang and board and batten

exterior. Overall, the building appears to be in good condition.

(7) Hotel Building

This two-story building was constructed in 1958. It is rectangular in shape and consists

of approximately 8,736 total square feet of space. Of standard wood frame construction,

the building is set on a reinforced concrete foundation with floor joists, sub-floor, and

concrete floors. The roof is shed with an eave overhang. The exterior consists of stucco.

A small utility room structure exists adjacent to the building toward the northwest

elevation. Overall, this building appears to be in good condition.

(8) Hotel Building

This four-story building was constructed in 1966. It is rectangular in shape and consists

of approximately 40,572 total square feet of space. Of standard wood frame construction,

the building is set on a concrete foundation with concrete floors. The roof is flat and

roofing material is composed of composition. The roof does not have any overhang. The

exterior is made of unfinished concrete block. The main, north and south elevations

feature nine recessed sections with sliding glass doors that open onto patios or balconies.

Overall, this building appears to be in good condition.

(9) Storage/Receiving/Office Building

This two-story storage/receiving and office building was constructed in 1985. Unlike

most of the other buildings on-site, this structure is Spanish Eclectic in style (reflecting

the contemporary stylistic preference during the time in which it was built). The building

consists of approximately 5,163 total square feet of space. The building is almost square

in shape except for a recessed section along the northeast elevation, which serves as a car

port at ground level and a balcony above. Set upon a reinforced concrete foundation, the

building features concrete block walls on the first floor (which are unfinished) and wood

walls on the second floor (which are stuccoed). Decorative rafters separate the two

floors. The roof is flat with no eave overhang and window areas are recessed with multi-

paned windows and faux wood shutters. Overall, this building appears to be in good

condition.

Significance Evaluation

Integrity Evaluation

In addition to determining the significance of a property under local, state, and national

criteria, a property must also must possess integrity. Integrity is defined by the National

significance.” It is defined by the HRB Guidelines for the Application of Historical

Resources Board Designation Criteria as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s

physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during

the resource’s period of significance.” Further, integrity relates “to the presence or

absence of historic materials and character defining features” of a resource. The local,

state, and national registers recognize seven aspects of integrity—location, design,

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location

Location is defined by the National Register as “the place where the historic property

was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.” It is defined by the HRB

Designation Guidelines as “the place where a resource was constructed or where an

event occurred.”

The Property was constructed between 1953-1985. The buildings that comprise the site

have remained in their current locations throughout their existence.

Design

Design is defined by the National Register as the “combination of elements that create

the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.” It is defined by the HRB

Designation Guidelines as resulting “from intentional decisions made during the

conception and planning of a resource. Design includes form, plan, space, structure, and

style of a property.”

The Property has been substantially modified and/or altered from that of its original

appearance. In varying degrees, all of the buildings have been updated and modernized

to reflect their current contemporary appearances. In particular, those buildings dating

from the 1950s have largely been changed beyond recognition. As such, the Property

does not retain its design element for integrity purposes.

Setting

Setting is defined by the National Register as the physical environment of a historic

property. It is defined by the HRB Designation Guidelines as applying “to a physical

environment, the character of a resource’s location, and a resource’s relationship to the

surrounding area.”

The Property was constructed between 1953-1985. The buildings that comprise the site

have remained in their current locations since this time. Inspection of the surrounding

Mission Beach and Mission Bay areas today indicates the presence of some original

buildings which pre-date the time the site was first developed (i.e. pre-1953). However,

many more structures have either been removed or remodeled over the years. Further,

review of historic photographs taken in 1953, 1954, and 1956 reveal the fact that between

these years, the surrounding area was largely composed of open space, and devoid of

buildings, structures, and objects. Review of 1968 historic photographs shows that the

immediate vicinity was, by this time, experiencing steady growth. Since this time, there

has been large-scale residential and commercial development throughout the surrounding

area. This newer development has adversely impacted the overall physical environment

of the area. As such, the Property retains its original setting element for integrity

purposes.

Materials

Materials are defined by the National Register as 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. It is defined by the HRB Designation

Guidelines as comprising “the physical elements combined or deposited in a particular

pattern or configuration to form a property.”

The materials which have gone into the construction of the Property are largely non-

original and have been added to the buildings over the years. As such, the Property does

not retain its materials element for integrity purposes.

Workmanship

Workmanship is defined by the National Register as “the physical evidence of the crafts

of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.” It is

defined by the HRB Designation Guidelines as consisting “of the physical evidence of

crafts employed by a particular culture, people, or artisan, which includes traditional,

vernacular, and high styles.”

As with the materials discussion above, the workmanship which has gone into the

construction of the Property is largely non-original. As such, the Property does not retain

its workmanship element for integrity purposes.

Feeling

Feeling is defined by the National Register as “a property’s expression of the aesthetic or

historic sense of a particular period of time.” It is defined by the HRB Designation

Guidelines as relying “on present physical features of a property to convey and evoke an

aesthetic or historic sense of past time and place.”

Review of historic and contemporary photographs demonstrate that, in its current

condition, the Property no longer imparts an aesthetic sense of Modern Contemporary

construction from the 1950s through 1980s. As a result, the Property does not retain its

feeling element for integrity purposes.

Association

Association is defined by the National Register as “the direct link between an important

historic event or person and a historic property.” It is defined by the HRB Designation

Guidelines as directly [linking] a historic property with a historic event, activity, or

person or past time and place; and requires the presence of physical features to convey

the property’s historic character.”

The Property is not directly linked to any important historic events or persons. As a

result, the Property does not possess, nor has it ever possessed, an associative element for

integrity purposes.

Application of San Diego Historical Resources Board (HRB) Register Significance

Criteria

According to the City of San Diego Land Development Code, Historical Resources

Guidelines (Adopted September 28, 1999; Amended June 6, 2000; April 30, 2001), a

building, structure, sign, interior element and fixture, feature, site, place, district, area or

object may be designated as historic by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board

if it meets any of the following below criteria. Guidelines in applying the criteria for

designation exist in the Guidelines for the Application of Historical Resources Board

Designation Criteria (Land Development Manual, Historical Resources Guidelines,

Appendix E, Part 2, and Adopted August 27, 2009).

Criterion A-- If it exemplifies or reflects special elements of a City’s, a community’s or a

neighborhood’s historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic,

engineering, landscaping or architectural development.

“Special Elements of Development”

According to the HRB Designation Guidelines, special elements of development refer to a

resource that is distinct among others of its kind or that surpass the usual in significance.

It is not enough for a resource to simply reflect an aspect of development, as all

buildings, structures, and objects do. For each aspect of development, the resource shall

exemplify or reflect a special element of that development which either maintains an

established precedent, or may in itself be the model for development.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects special elements of San Diego’s, Mission Bay’s, the

Tidelands’, or West Mission Bay Drive’s historical, archaeological, cultural, social,

economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development.

The buildings in no way exemplify or reflect “special elements” of City, community, or

neighborhood development any more than other existing structures which also exist in the

area today.

Under the Guidelines for the Application of the Historical Resources Board Designation

Criteria, the Property does not possess special elements of development which are

distinct among others of its kind or that surpass the usual in significance. The buildings

were largely constructed as Modern Contemporary hotel buildings in a style that was

convenient and popular at the time. In their current condition, the buildings possess very

few elements which would elevate them to a level above other Modern Contemporary

structures built in Mission Bay, San Diego, or the San Diego region during the 1950s

through the 1980s. The buildings do not possess any features which exemplify or reflect

special elements of subdivision development. As specified under the Guidelines, it is not

enough for a resource to simply reflect an aspect of development as all buildings do.

Similarly, the Property does not reflect an aspect of development within the Tidelands

any more than other structures which were built in and around the area beginning in the

1950s. The buildings do not reflect an element of development which maintains an

established precedent, nor were they the model of development in the subdivision.

Historical Development—In order to be significant for Historical Development, a

resource shall exemplify or reflect a special or unique aspect of the City’s general

historical development; or shall exemplify or reflect a unique aspect of the City’s history.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects a special or unique aspect of the City’s general historical

development; or exemplifies or reflects a unique aspect of the City’s history. The

buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form of historical

development.

Archaeological Development—In order to be significant for Archaeological

Development, a resource shall be prehistoric or historic in nature but must exemplify

archaeological development through subsurface deposits and may include associated

surface features.

The Property is not a prehistoric or historic archaeological resource and, therefore, the

buildings are not significant with respect to any form of archaeological development.

Cultural Development—In order to be significant for Cultural Development, a resource

shall exemplify or reflect development that is associated with a group of people linked

together by shared values, beliefs, and historical associations, or are properties

associated with significant achievement in the visual and fine arts, (painting, sculpture,

architecture, theater, dance, music,) literature, philosophy, religion, science,

mathematics, the social studies, or any of the disciplines that are commonly associated

with public and private institutions of higher learning and/or academic inquiry.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects an association with a group of people linked together by

shared values, beliefs, and historical associations, or is associated with significant

achievement in the visual and fine arts, literature, philosophy, religion, science,

mathematics, the social studies, or any of the disciplines that are commonly associated

with public and private institutions of higher learning and/or academic inquiry. The

buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form of cultural development.

Social Development—In order to be significant for Social Development, a resource shall

exemplify or reflect development that is associated with relations and interactions with

others.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with relations and interactions

with others. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form of

social development.

Economic Development—In order to be significant for Economic Development, a

resource shall exemplify or reflect development associated with the local, regional, state

or national economy or economics, including manufacturing, labor and agriculture,

maritime and transportation industries.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with economics or economic

industries. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form of

economic development.

Political Development—In order to be significant for Political Development, a resource

shall exemplify or reflect development associated with politics or the political

atmosphere, including women’s suffrage, neighborhood activism, labor organizations

and the Civil Rights Movement associated with ethnic and gay/lesbian issues.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with politics or the political

atmosphere/environment. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any

form of political development.

Aesthetic Development—In order to be significant for Aesthetic Development, a resource

shall exemplify or reflect development associated with an artistic arrangement in theory

or practice.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with artistic arrangement in

theory or practice. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form

of aesthetic development.

Engineering Development—In order to be significant for Engineering Development, a

resource shall exemplify or reflect development associated with engineering.

Engineering development may include professionally applied standards or design

ingenuity within engineering disciplines. Engineering solutions may be applied within

individual buildings, structures and objects, or be associated with large scale

infrastructure development like ports, railroads, roads and freeways, dams and flood

control, electrical transmission and water systems.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated engineering, including

professional engineering standards, engineering design ingenuity, or engineering

disciplines. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form of

engineering development.

Landscape Development—In order to be significant for Landscape Development, a

resource shall exemplify or reflect development associated with garden and park design,

subdivision design, or ecosystem/habitat restoration and may include professionally

applied standards or design ingenuity within landscape disciplines.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with garden and park design,

subdivision design, ecosystem/habitat restoration, or professional landscaping standards,

or design ingenuity within landscape disciplines. The buildings, therefore, are not

significant with respect to any form of landscape development.

Architectural Development—In order to be significant for Architectural Development, a

resource shall exemplify or reflect development associated with the City’s built

environment, especially that designed and constructed by non-architects, including real

estate developers, contractors, speculators, homeowners and others associated with the

building industry.

No historical evidence was identified which would support the contention that the

Property exemplifies or reflects development associated with the City’s built

environment, including architecture designed and constructed by non-architects, real

estate developers, contractors, speculators, homeowners, and others associated with the

building industry. The buildings, therefore, are not significant with respect to any form

of architectural development.

Therefore, based upon the above analysis, the Property does not qualify under any aspect

of HRB Criterion A (Community Development).!

Criterion B--Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national

history.

According to the HRB Designation Guidelines, resources associated with individuals

whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented may qualify

under Criterion B for persons significant in history. Persons significant in our past

refers to individuals associated with San Diego whose activities, achievements and

contributions are demonstrably important within the City, state, or nation.

A person would not be considered historically significant simply by virtue of

position/title, association, affiliation, race, gender, ethnicity or religion. Criterion B is

generally restricted to those Property that are associated with a person’s important

achievements, rather than those that are associated with their birth or retirement, or that

are commemorative in nature. The person must have made demonstrable achievements

and contributions to the history of San Diego, the state, or the nation. In addition, the

resource must be associated with the person during the period that the person’s

significant achievements and contributions occurred.

No historical evidence was found which would suggest that the Property was ever

directly identified with any persons or events significant in local, state, or national

history. None of the persons associated with the Property performed any activities,

achievements or contributions which were demonstrably important within the City, state,

or nation. The Property does not qualify under HRB Criterion B (Historic Person).

Criterion C--Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of

construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or

craftsmanship.

According to the HRB Designation Guidelines, this Criterion applies to resources

significant for their physical design or method of construction. To embody the distinctive

characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction refers to the way in

which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by an individual, a group of

people, or a culture. Distinctive characteristics are those physical features or traits that

commonly recur in individual styles, types, periods or methods of construction.

In order to qualify under this Criterion, a resource must embody distinctive

characteristics of an architectural style, a type of construction, a recognized construction

period, or an identifiable method of construction, as established through accepted bodies

of scholarly and professional work. Comparison to other resources of the same style,

type, period, or method of construction is not required unless scholarly work has not

been done on a particular property type or unless surviving examples of a property type

are extremely rare.

It is important to note that Criterion C states that a resource embody the distinctive

characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction; it does not state that the

resource must be a unique or distinguished example of a style, type, period or method of

construction. Resources which do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a style,

type, period or method of construction as supported by established sources do not

qualify.

In October 2007, the City of San Diego developed and implemented the “San Diego

Modernism Historic Context Statement” (“Modernism Context Statement”). The stated

purpose of the Modernism Context Statement is to “assist in the identification, evaluation

and preservation of significant historic buildings, districts, sites and structures associated

with the Modernism movement in San Diego from 1935 to 1970 and was created to better

understand “Modern era resources and the types of resources that are significant to the

history and development of San Diego.” The City of San Diego utilizes the Modernism

Context Statement in conjunction with the evaluation of potential historical resources

constructed within the Modern era from 1935-1970.

Under the Modernism Context Statement, the Property was largely designed and

constructed as a Modern Contemporary hotel complex, with individual building units,

between 1953-1985. The buildings do not represent the Modern Contemporary style, nor

are they valuable examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. In this

regard, the buildings do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period,

or method of Modern Contemporary construction. The buildings simply lack a number

of character-defining physical features commonly associated with the Modern

Contemporary style.

Modernism Context Statement—General Characteristics

According to the Modernism Context Statement, Modern Contemporary style homes,

including commercial buildings, employed the latest styles and materials including such

modern features as interior courtyards; aluminum framed windows; sliding-glass doors;

attached carports or garages; angular massing; varied materials use; and unusual roof

forms. Aside from the presence of sliding glass doors, angular massing, and the varied

use of materials, the Property does not possess any other of these “modern features.” As

a result, the Property fails to possess an abundance of general characteristics indicative of

Modern Contemporary construction as detailed in the Modernism Context Statement to

be considered a true, representative example of the style.

Modernism Context Statement—Primary-Character Defining Features

According to the Modernism Context Statement, there are three (3) “Primary” Character-

Defining features of Modern Contemporary construction. The following Primary

character-defining features noted in the Modernism Context Statement have been

specifically applied to the Property, accordingly:

1. Strong roof forms, including flat, gabled, shed or butterfly, typically with deep

overhangs.

The Property includes buildings that have flat and shed roofs with deep overhangs.

Collectively, however, these roof forms are not considered to be “strong.” As a result,

the Property does not possess this Primary Character-Defining feature of Modern

Contemporary construction.

2. Large windows, often aluminum framed.

Overall, the Property features standard size metal windows, consistent with typical

commercial-hotel unit construction. Original windows are known to have been wood, as

well as metal fixed, casement, and louvered varieties. It is not known whether the

original metal windows were aluminum or steel. In any event, original windows have

been replaced over the years such that today, the windows are not considered large, nor

are they aluminum framed. Therefore, the Property does not possess this Primary

Character-Defining feature of the Modern Contemporary construction.

3. Non-traditional exterior finishes, including vertical wood siding, concrete block,

stucco, flagstone and mullion-free glass.

The exterior of the Property is composed of board and batten, stucco, and concrete block

(in varying combinations). These are considered to be “non-traditional exterior finishes.”

Therefore, the Property possesses this Primary Character-Defining feature of Modern

Contemporary construction.

Summary: Of the three Primary Character-Defining features of Modern Contemporary

construction expressed in the Modernism Context Statement, the Property possesses one

of these Primary Character-Defining features.

Modernism Context Statement—Secondary Character-Defining Features

According to the Modernism Context Statement, there are eight (8) “Secondary”

Character-Defining features of Modern Contemporary construction. The following

Secondary character-defining features noted in the Modernism Context Statement have

been specifically applied to the Property, accordingly:

1. Angular massing.

The Property does have some angular massing. This is produced by the spatial

arrangement and integration of the buildings (especially those smaller one-story, units

along the west and east elevations) on site in their current location and orientation. As a

result, the Property possesses this Secondary Character-Defining feature of Modern

Contemporary construction.

2. Sunshades, screens or shadow block accents.

The Property does not have any sunshades, screens, or shadow block accents. Therefore,

the Property does not possess this Secondary Character-Defining feature of Modern

Contemporary construction.

3. Attached garages or carports for homes.

The Property is not residential in nature and does not feature any attached garages or

carports. Further, those parking areas located next to individual hotel units are open and

not fully or partially enclosed. As such, the Property does not possess this Secondary

Character-Defining feature of Modern Contemporary construction.

4. Split-level design, especially on sloped residential sites.

The Property does not feature a split-level design. As such, the Property does not possess

this Secondary Character-Defining feature of Modern Contemporary construction.

5. Horizontally oriented commercial buildings.

The Property features horizontally oriented hotel units, which are organized by groups

and located along the west and east elevations. Therefore, the Property possesses this

Secondary Character-Defining feature of Modern Contemporary construction.

6. Distinctive triangular, parabolic or arched forms.

The Property does not have any distinctive triangular, parabolic, or arched forms.

Therefore, the Property does not possess this Secondary Character-Defining feature of

Modern Contemporary construction.

7. “Eyebrow” overhangs on commercial buildings; and

The Property does not feature any “eyebrow” overhangs. Therefore, the Property does

not possess this Secondary Character-Defining feature of Modern Contemporary

construction.

8. Integrated, stylized signage on commercial buildings.

The Property originally featured at least two instances of integrated, stylized signage.

The original neon signage which advertised the site as the “Bahia Motor Hotel” with

Restaurant, Coffee Shop, and Cocktails, was located on a free-standing brick structure at

the entrance of the property along West Mission Bay Drive (Ventura Boulevard). The

second sign which identified the site as the “Bahia,” was located on the 1967 hotel

addition built along the southeast elevation. Both signs are today no longer in existence

and, therefore, the Property does not possess this Secondary Character-Defining feature

of Modern Contemporary construction.

Summary: Out of the eight Secondary Character-Defining features of Modern

Contemporary construction expressed in the Modernism Context Statement, the Property

possesses only two Secondary features. As such, the Property does not possess the vast

majority of Secondary Character-Defining features of Modern Contemporary

construction.

Modernism Context Statement—Evaluation Criteria

In evaluating the potential significance and eligibility for designation of Modern

Contemporary buildings, the Modernism Context Statement notes the following:

•“While this style was relatively popular in San Diego tract construction, many of these

homes and buildings have been extensively remodeled diminishing their level of integrity

and reducing the abundance of good examples from this sub-style substantially.”

The Property has been extensively remodeled and its original integrity has been

substantially compromised. In addition, the buildings do not possess the majority of

either the Primary and Secondary character-defining features of the Modern

Contemporary style. Therefore, the Property is not considered a good example of

Modern Contemporary construction.

•“…Houses [buildings] may still poses [sic. possess] significance due to their

association with a potential master architect.”

Between 1953-1985, the Property has experienced the design/construction and/or the

modification and alteration of existing buildings by a number of different architects,

designers, and/or contractors. The original hotel buildings constructed between 1953-

1961 were designed and built by William D. Evans, the owner and developer of the

Property. Architect D. Robert Thomas was responsible for the design of some of the

additions to existing buildings between 1962-1964 (with Evans as builder); the Trepte

Construction Company designed and built some units in 1963; the Health Club building

was designed by architect Raymond Bundy, and the Utility Room was designed by

architect Mark Faddis in 1963; Architect Victory Meyer designed the large hotel addition

along the southeast elevation in 1967; architects J.V. Thompson & Associates designed

additions to the main lobby and restaurant building in 1969; and Architectural Lines

designed the receiving facility and administration offices in 1985. None of these

individuals or firms has been determined to be master architects, builders, or craftsmen

by the present study (see discussion below), nor are they regarded by the City of San

Diego as a “master” architects, builders, or craftsmen. They are not listed in the City of

San Diego’s San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement (2007) nor are they listed

in the City of San Diego’s Biographies of Established Masters (2011). Further, they are

not considered to be potential master architects, builders, or craftsmen, and the

design/construction of the hotel buildings are not considered to be “notable.”

•“Good examples of this style that retain a high degree of integrity should therefore be

considered for individual designation, especially if…associated with a significant

architect. Due to the somewhat limited supply of unaltered examples, retention of all

character defining features may not be necessary for listing, if comparative analysis

demonstrates that the building retains a relatively high degree of integrity compared to

other extant examples.”

It has been determined that the Property has not retained a sufficient degree of original

integrity. Further, all of the buildings which comprise the Property were designed by

individuals or firms that are not considered to be “significant” architects. In addition,

most importantly, the buildings do not display the majority of Primary and Secondary

character-defining features associated with the Modern Contemporary style. As such, the

buildings are not eligible for individual designation.

In summary, based upon the above analysis under the Modernism Context Statement,

including specific emphasis on general characteristics, Primary and Secondary character-

defining features, and evaluation criteria for the Modern Contemporary architectural

style, the Property is not eligible for historic designation and is not architecturally

significant. In addition, due to the fact that no indigenous materials went into the

construction of the buildings mean that the Property is not a valuable example of the use

of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. The Property does not qualify under HRB

Criterion C (Architecture).

Criterion D--Is representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer,

architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist, or craftsman.

According to the HRB Designation Guidelines, a “Master” is defined as “a figure of

generally recognized greatness in a field.” A property is not eligible under Criterion D

simply because it was designed by a prominent architect, builder, etc., but rather must be

the work of a master. Additionally, not all examples of a Master’s work are eligible.

Criterion D requires the resource be representative of the notable work of the Master.

As stated previously, the buildings and additions which comprise the Property were

designed and/or constructed by a number of different architects, designers, and/or

contractors between 1953-1985. The original hotel buildings constructed between 1953-