SR-12-15-2015-7ASan Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 17
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
constructed in neighborhoods of single-family properties, into which they assimilated with little
intrusion.
As multi-family housing became a more prevalent option for wealthier clients in the late 1920s, the
bungalow court matured into a new prototype of apartment dwelling: the courtyard apartment. While
bungalow courts were modest and restrained, courtyard apartments tended to be a type of high-style
architecture. They were often designed by architects inspired by various types of courtyards in in the
Mediterranean region, including patio houses, palaces, markets, and inns. The temperate California
climate enabled architects to design spacious patios, verandas, and balconies opening into a central
courtyard, which was almost always lushly landscaped with spaces designed for both rest and
meditation as well as pedestrian circulation. Hallways and corridors were effectively placed out of doors,
encouraging interaction among residents. Buildings were arranged in U- and L-shaped configurations,
acting as both dwelling and enclosure for carefully designed courtyards.
The elaborate Mediterranean-inspired courtyard apartments of the 1920s and 1930s were surpassed by
more stripped-down, vernacular versions during World War II and the postwar era. As California’s
population skyrocketed during and after the war, the demand for housing outweighed supply; the need
to quickly build residences for defense workers and returning veterans influenced the more stripped-
down appearance of the courtyard apartment. Additionally, tastes in style shifted in favor of more
minimal, Modern modes of architecture. The postwar years also brought increased concerns about
privacy, which influenced courtyard housing plans. Open U- and L-shaped plans were replaced with O-
and C-shaped plans, which featured a solid or nearly solid street wall with a small front or side opening
into the courtyard. Though residential units or common entry halls were still accessed through the
courtyard, the communal function of the space changed. Lush landscaping and sitting areas for rest and
contemplation gave way to paving and swimming pools for communal recreational use.
With the late 1960s and 1970s came a shift away from the courtyard apartment as a popular multi-
family housing type. Courtyards were viewed as a waste of potentially inhabitable, rentable space as
demands for maximizing lot capacity increased. Building plans became rectangular in shape, and
outdoor courtyards were replaced with interior entrance corridors and light wells. The location of
parking changed as well. Whereas earlier courtyard apartments had rear detached garages or rear soft-
story parking, apartments in the 1960s often had integrated parking structures at the first floor of the
building, and 1970s apartments typically featured subterranean parking structures.
The variety of courtyard apartments within the Study Area closely align with the evolution of courtyard
housing throughout Santa Monica and the rest of Southern California. Courtyard apartments were
constructed in the district from the late 1930s to the late 1950s. All are two or three stories in height,
have L-, U-, I-, C- or O-shaped plans, exterior landscaped courtyards, and rear detached garages or
rear/side soft-story parking. Apartments in the district from the 1960s and 1970s are typically three or
more stories in height, with rectangular plans, interior corridors with light wells, and integrated first-
story or subterranean parking structures.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 18
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
5. Physical Character
5.1 Courtyard Apartment Typology
The Study Area is primarily composed of 1930s to 1950s courtyard apartments featuring open plans
surrounding landscaped courtyards. Although the complexes vary in age, style and appearance,
contributors to the district share distinguishing characteristics of various courtyard apartment property
types, creating a unified and cohesive overall appearance.
Character-defining features of the courtyard apartment property type, as conveyed by buildings and
complexes within the Study Area, include the following:
L-, U-, I-, C- or O-shaped plans
Generous setbacks from San Vicente Boulevard, creating a park-like appearance along the
boulevard
One to three stories in height
Landscaped courtyards accessible from the street, either along the side or at the center of the
apartment complex, often featuring paved walkways, planters, and, in later iterations,
swimming pools
Dwelling units accessed via courtyard entrances, with exterior walkways/stairways that face the
courtyard (rather than interior corridors or hallways)
Rear detached garages or rear soft-story parking
5.2 Architectural Styles
While unified as a cohesive collection of courtyard apartments, buildings within the Study Area convey a
variety of architectural styles. Style featured within the district boundary include Streamline Moderne,
American Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Mid-Century Modern. These styles were commonly
applied to courtyard apartments throughout Santa Monica and the rest of Southern California during
the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s.
Buildings and complexes within the Study Area were designed by a number of architects and builders; in
only a few cases were more than one building or complex designed by a single architect. Notable
architects whose work can be found in the Study Area include Carl Maston (229 San Vicente Boulevard)
and Edith Northman (614-618 San Vicente Boulevard). Maston was best known for his Mid-Century
Modern designs for residential and institutional buildings, including the Thies Residence in Studio City
and the Cal Poly Pomona College of Environmental Design. Northman was one of very few women
practicing architecture in Los Angeles during the 1930s. She designed buildings of all types but is known
mostly for her Period Revival multi-family residential buildings, including courtyard apartments like Villa
Sevilla in West Hollywood and Chateauesque apartment buildings from Los Angeles to Fresno.
Streamline Moderne
Streamline Moderne architecture emerged in the 1930s and is often considered to be a later subtype of
the Art Deco style. Whereas Art Deco architecture is typically brightly colored and richly decorated,
Streamline Moderne is sparse, unornamented and monochromatic. The Streamline Moderne style
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 19
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
offered a modern aesthetic and streamlined appearance appropriate to the motor age and automobile
culture in Southern California. The Study Area’s earliest surviving courtyard apartment was constructed
in the Streamline Moderne style.
Common character-defining features of the Streamline Moderne style include:
Smooth stucco cladding
Curved surfaces, such as rounded corners and/or bays
A flat roof, often with banded coping at the parapet
Projecting bands accenting the façade between stories and emphasizing horizontality
Minimal use of applied ornament
Multi-paned steel casement windows, often arranged in bands
Circular accent windows
American Colonial Revival
American Colonial Revival architecture experienced a resurgence in popularity in the 1920s and
continued to be applied to both single- and multi-family properties in Santa Monica and throughout the
greater Los Angeles area through the 1950s. A number of courtyard apartments in the proposed historic
district are examples of American Colonial Revival architecture. American Colonial Revival elements are
applied to several Minimal Traditional-style buildings in the district as well.
Common character-defining features of the American Colonial Revival style include:
Front or side gabled roofs
Wood clapboard siding, sometimes applied in combination with stucco cladding
Double-hung wood sash windows, often with divided lights
Shutters at windows
Pediments over entryways
Columns or pilasters at entries (either as porch supports or surrounding doorways)
Minimal Traditional
The Minimal Traditional style emerged in the late 1930s and was popular through the mid-1950s.
Minimal Traditional buildings often reflect the form of Period Revival buildings, but lack the ornament
and decorative detailing of the Period Revival style. Although most often thought of as a single-family
house style, Minimal Traditional apartment buildings are not uncommon; multiple examples exist within
the Study Area.
Common character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional style include:
Low-pitched hipped roofs, typically with narrow eaves
Smooth stucco cladding, often used in combination with clapboard, brick or stone veneer
Minimal applied ornament
Steel casement windows
At times, stripped down decorative features such as shutters or pilasters
Mid-Century Modern
The Mid-Century Modern style emerged after World War II and was influenced by an early and
influential tradition of Modernism in Southern California, which found precedents in Europe’s
International Style. Modern architecture in the postwar era was widely applied to all property types,
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 20
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
including residential, commercial, and institutional, many of which were designed by some of Southern
California’s most influential architects. In general, Mid-Century Modernism rejected previous
architectural traditions and historicist styles, instead embracing new, innovative materials and
technologies and prioritizing function over form. A number of Mid-Century Modern courtyard
apartments and apartment houses are extant in the Study Area.
Common character-defining features of Mid-Century Modern architecture include:
Stucco cladding at times used in combination with other textural elements, such as brick or
concrete block
Low-pitched or flat roofs, often with wide, cantilevered overhangs
Horizontal elements such as fascias that cap the front edge of the flat roofs or parapets
Aluminum-frame windows grouped within horizontal frames
Oversized decorative elements or decorative face-mounted light fixtures
Prominent graphic signage at front façade, often displaying apartment name and address
6. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation
6.1 City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.36 (Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City
Council on March 24, 1976 and twice amended, first in 1987 and again in 1991.15 Among the primary
objectives achieved by the Ordinance was the creation of a local designation program for buildings,
structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes in the City that are of historical significance.
With regard to individually significant properties, the Ordinance distinguishes between two tiers of
designation: Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Landmarks, outlined in §9.36.100, are considered to
exhibit “the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance.” Structures of Merit,
outlined in §9.36.080, possess a degree of individual significance that is more limited in scope.16
Protections against demolition and alterations are commensurate with the tier of individual designation
assigned to a particular resource.
In addition to individual Landmarks and Structures of Merit, the Ordinance establishes statutory criteria
and procedures for the designation of Historic Districts, defined in §9.36.030 as a “geographic area or
noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties” that collectively contribute to the historic
character of an area within the City.
Per §9.36.100(a) of the Ordinance, a property (or a geographic area or grouping of properties) merits
consideration as a Landmark (or Historic District) if it satisfies one or more of the following six statutory
criteria:
15 City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic
Resources Group (September 2002), 1-2.
16 City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, “Historic Preservation in Santa Monica,” accessed
8 August 2014 < http://www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-Preservation/>
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 21
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political,
or architectural history of the City;
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value;
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national
history;
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style,
method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique
or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type valuable to such a study;
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect;
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
Per §9.36.100(b) of the Ordinance, a geographic area or grouping of properties merits consideration as a
Historic District if it satisfies one of the following four statutory criteria:
(1) Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a)(1) through (6);
(2) It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area
possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each
other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality;
(3) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of
settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or
community planning;
(4) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
6.2 Guidelines for Historic District Contribution
Pursuant to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the City of Santa Monica defines a
Contributing Building or Structure as one “which has been identified by the Landmarks Commission as
one which contributes to the designation of an area as a Historic District” (Santa Monica Municipal Code
§9.36.030).
For the purposes of this assessment, a building was identified as a contributor to the proposed historic
district if it meets all of the following criteria:
It relates to the historic contexts/themes within which the Historic District is significant;
It was constructed during the period(s) of significance which has (have) been defined for the
Historic District; and
It retains sufficient integrity to reflect its significance.
Buildings that do not meet these criteria are considered to be non-contributors to the proposed historic
district.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 22
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
7. Evaluation of Significance
7.1 Boundary Justification
The proposed boundary for the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District is a two-block-long
stretch of San Vicente Boulevard containing 40 properties. It is bounded by the alley between San
Vicente Boulevard and Adelaide Drive to the north, the alley between San Vicente Boulevard and
Georgina Avenue to the south, 7th Street to the east, and 1st Court to the west.
The district nearly spans the east-west boundaries of the Palisades tract (a property that fronts on 4th
Street and five properties on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard, just west of 7th Street, are
excluded), which was subdivided in 1905. The district is distinguished by its substantial concentration of
multi-family properties compared to the adjacent streets, which primarily consist of single-family
residences. As early as the 1930s, the stretch of San Vicente Boulevard comprising the district was zoned
for multi-family residential development, whereas the neighborhoods surrounding the district were
zoned for single-family residential use.
7.2 Evaluation of Local Significance
In summary, the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District appears to meet local
criteria for designation as a Historic District. This determination was made by evaluating the district
against each of Santa Monica’s statutory criteria, as follows:
Landmark Criteria
9.36.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political, or architectural history of the City.
The Study Area appears to satisfy this criterion for exemplifying major patterns in Santa Monica’s
history, as an excellent and distinctive concentration of courtyard apartments. Courtyard apartments
are a multi-family housing type that emerged in the 1920s and were a popular form of multi-family
housing in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California through the 1950s. Responding to the
temperate climate of the region and the growing popularity of multi-family living among middle- and
upper-middle income residents in the years preceding and following World War II, courtyard apartments
are an important regional dwelling type in the architectural history of Southern California. Although
courtyard apartments are relatively common in the larger area, it is rare to find a geographic
concentration such as that which exists on San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica. Therefore, the
proposed district is significant as exemplifying patterns of multi-family housing in Santa Monica and
trends in regional dwelling types, in particular the courtyard apartment.
9.36.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The historic district contains buildings constructed in a variety of architectural styles, including
Streamline Moderne, American Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Mid-Century Modern.
Although the district has value as a concentration of the courtyard apartment property type, the
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 23
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
buildings themselves are typical examples of their styles; their artistic values are not highly significant,
unusual, or noteworthy. Therefore, the historic district does not appear to meet this criterion.
9.36.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or
national history.
The San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District was originally subdivided in 1905 by the
Palisades Investment Company and the Alta Santa Monica Company as part of the Palisades tract.
Original owners of the tract included H.M. Gorham, R.C. Gillis, C.L. Bundy, and J.J. Davis. Although each
of the original subdividers was significant in the development of early Santa Monica, their influence is
not reflected by the built environment within the Study Area. Furthermore, research did not reveal that
the district is significant for its association with a single tenant or owner. Therefore, it does not appear
to meet this criterion.
9.36.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period,
style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare
example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type valuable to such a study.
The historic district satisfies this criterion as an excellent collection of 1930s to 1950s courtyard
apartments in Santa Monica. As demands for high density, multi-family housing have continued to grow
in Santa Monica, intact groupings of smaller scale, multi-family properties have become increasingly rare
in the city. Contributing properties in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District are low-
scale courtyard apartment buildings with open plans partially or fully surrounding exterior landscaped
courtyards. Consistency of scale, plan, layout, and style distinguishes the Study Area from other
residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica. Thus, the district contains buildings that embody the
distinguishing characteristics of the courtyard apartment dwelling type; in addition, it is a rare
contiguous concentration of the property type in Santa Monica.
9.36.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect.
A number of builders, designers and architects were involved in the district’s development, including a
few architects of note, including Carl Maston and Edith Northman. As no individual or company
singularly influenced its development, the district is not a significant or representative example of the
work of a notable builder or architect. The historic district does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.36.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
Multi-family courtyard apartments comprise the majority of the Study Area, distinguishing it from
adjacent neighborhoods, which are almost exclusively single-family residential in composition.
Additionally, the district’s setting is distinctive due to its location on San Vicente Boulevard, a major
corridor that originally had streetcar tracks running down its center and is now occupied by a 50-foot-
wide median featuring regularly spaced coral trees. Due to its distinctive location along San Vicente
Boulevard and its unique multi-family residential composition in northwest Santa Monica, the Study
Area is an established and familiar visual feature in the city. Therefore it appears to meet this criterion.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 24
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
Historic District Criteria
9.36.100(b)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a)(1) through (6)
The Study Area appears to satisfy Criteria 9.36.100(a)(1), 9.36.100(a)(4), and 9.36.100(a)(6), as described
above. Thus, the district appears to meet this criterion.
9.36.100(b)(2). It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area
possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are
unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality
The Study Area contains a significant concentration of courtyard apartments, a popular multi-family
housing type in Southern California from the 1920s to the 1950s. Though a few courtyard apartments
within the district were constructed prior to World War II, the majority of contributing properties were
built in response to Santa Monica’s postwar housing demands. As all contributors in the district are
courtyard apartments, all have L-, O-, I-, C-, or U-shaped plans that partially or fully surround a
landscaped courtyard. Since most properties were constructed after World War II, popular 1940s-1950s
architectural styles, including American Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Mid-Century Modern,
are prominent in the district. Thus, the district is composed of a concentration of similar multi-family
property subtypes that are united aesthetically by their plans, scale, appearance, and architectural
styles. For these reasons, it appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.36.100(b)(3). It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras
of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community
planning
The Study Area was originally subdivided as part of the Palisades tract in 1905. Initial development of
the district paralleled the development of the surrounding area, as a number of large single-family
residences lined this stretch of San Vicente Boulevard by 1918. However, by the 1920s, small apartment
houses, bungalow courts, and courtyard apartments began filling empty lots between single-family
dwellings, and by 1937, the district was zoned for multi-family residential development. Development of
the district increased substantially during Santa Monica’s population boom after World War II. By the
late 1950s, two- and three-story courtyard apartment complexes had filled empty lots and replaced
smaller multi-family dwellings and single-family houses. To this day, the district reflects multi-family
residential development patterns, and in particular, the popularity of courtyard apartment housing, in
Santa Monica during the postwar era. Therefore, it appears to meet this criterion.
9.36.100(b)(4). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
Since the Study Area appears to meet Criterion 9.36.100(a)(6), it also satisfies this criterion.
7.3 Period of Significance
The period of significance for the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District begins in
1937, with the construction of the earliest extant courtyard apartment in the Study Area, and ends in
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 25
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
1956, with the erection of the district’s last courtyard apartment. Buildings constructed after 1956
signify a shift from the courtyard apartment property type to higher density apartment houses and
condominiums. In order to maximize lot capacity, open plans around shared courtyards were generally
replaced with rectangular plans and small, interior light wells in these later multi-family properties.
Although a small number of later apartment and condominium complexes in the Study Area feature
courtyards, in general these later complexes do not embody the mid-20th century courtyard apartment
property type as they lack the essential character-defining features of the type, including access to the
courtyard from the street, dwelling units facing the courtyard, exterior corridors, and rear parking.
Therefore, the period of significance was not extended to include these later examples, although they
may merit further study in the future.
7.4 Recommendations of Individual Eligibility
Although ARG did not conduct an intensive-level survey of all properties within the district to evaluate
for individual eligibility against Santa Monica Landmark criteria, two properties stood out as appearing
locally eligible as excellent examples of their respective architectural styles and/or property types.
212 San Vicente Boulevard appears eligible against Santa Monica Landmark criteria as the
earliest example of a courtyard apartment on San Vicente Boulevard and as an excellent
example of the Streamline Moderne style.
Though 621 San Vicente Boulevard was located in ARG’s initial Study Area, the property does
not display the character-defining features of the courtyard apartment housing typology and is
not located within the boundaries of the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartments District.
However, ARG recommends that it appears eligible against Santa Monica Landmark criteria as
an excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern style.
8. Conclusion
Based on documentary research, field investigation, the development of historic contexts, and an
evaluation against local eligibility criteria, ARG finds that the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic
District appears eligible under City of Santa Monica Landmark Criteria 9.36.100(a)(1), 9.36.100(a)(4),
9.36.100(a)(6); and Historic District Criteria 9.36.100(b)(1), 9.36.100(b)(2), 9.36.100(b)(3), and
9.36.100(b)(4). Of the 40 total properties in the district, 26 (65%) were found to be contributors to the
historic district.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 26
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
Bibliography
Books, Periodicals, and Other Published Materials:
“Changes Sought in Santa Monica’s Zoning Ordinance.” Los Angeles Times, 7 December 1952.
City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services
Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 12-13.
Display Ad 1. Red Door Patio. Los Angeles Times, 27 June 1936.
Display Ad 10. The Shoreham Apartment Hotel. Los Angeles Times, 2 October 1924.
Display Ad 23. Thistle Cottage. Los Angeles Times, 26 November 1931.
Henderson, George L. California and the Fictions of Capital. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
ICF Jones & Stokes. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Prepared
by ICF Jones & Stokes for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department,
2010.
Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll,
1908.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1984.
Pfeiffer, Deirdre. The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico Neighborhood in
Santa Monica, CA. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007.
Polyzoides, Stephanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A
Typological Analysis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992.
Santa Monica City Directories (various), accessed online through the Santa Monica Public Library
website.
“Santa Monica: Cyclone of Buyers.” Los Angeles Times, 3 August 1905.
“San Vicente Beautification Delayed Again.” Los Angeles Times, 6 July 1958.
Scott, Paula. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
Schwieterman, John P. When the Railroad Leaves Town: American Communities in the Age of Rail Line
Abandonment. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004.
Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach. Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 27
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990.
“Santa Monica Ordinance: Widespread Zoning Changes Proposed.” Los Angeles Times, 16 August 1959.
“Zoning Limit on Multiple Housing Urged in S.M.” Los Angeles Times, 14 August 1975.
Other Sources:
Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations Inc., 2002. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census.
City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. “Historic Preservation in
Santa Monica.” Accessed online at http://www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-
Preservation/.
City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. “Historic Resources
Inventory.” Accessed online at http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Historic-Resources-
Inventory/.Historic Aerial Images, 1947-2005. Accessed online at http://www.historicaerials.com.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed online at
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/surveyrecord/tractMain.cfm.
Los Angeles Public Library. Historical Los Angeles Times. Accessed online at http://www.lapl.org.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company. Fire Insurance Maps, Santa Monica, California, 1918-1950.
Santa Monica Public Library. Historical Maps of Santa Monica. Accessed online at
http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/maps.
Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Newspaper Index. Accessed online at
http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/smfile.
San Vicente Courtyard Apartments
Historic District Assessment Page 28
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, & Conservators
Attachments:
Appendix A: Property Table
Appendix B: Photo Log
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
12
3
‐13
3
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
8
C.
F
.
an
d
Je
w
e
l
D.
Ca
r
t
e
r
W.
No
a
c
k
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 Some windows replaced; garage addition (1959)
13
0
‐14
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Te
r
i
t
o
n
5S
1
,
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
0
Sa
n
f
o
r
d
Ke
n
t
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3 None visible
13
5
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
9
O.
J
.
& G.
A
.
Mc
D
o
n
l
a
d
Cu
r
t
i
s
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
Ot
t
o
D.
Ha
n
s
e
n
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
3 Some windows replaced
15
0
‐15
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Ov
e
r
c
l
i
f
f
Ma
n
o
r
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
9
Le
o
n
a
r
d
Fr
i
e
d
l
a
n
d
/
R
ob
e
r
t
Fr
e
e
m
a
n
Sa
n
f
o
r
d
Ke
n
t
To
m
Ro
w
l
e
y
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 Walkways repaved
15
3
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
6
7
Sp
e
c
t
r
u
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t Co
.
Pe
r
r
y
Ne
u
s
c
h
a
t
z
,
AI
A
Sp
e
c
t
r
u
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
.
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
4
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) Balconies replaced; entrance door and windows replaced
20
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
3
Sa
m
Ga
l
p
e
r
Da
v
i
d
Fr
e
e
m
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 None visible
20
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
8
2
Co
p
a
n
Na
p
o
c
,
In
c
.
Te
d
Ta
n
n
e
r
/
W
a
l
l
a
ce
Wo
n
g
By
c
o
r
Lt
d
.
Ot
h
e
r
3
(s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
nean parking) None visible
21
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
3
Sa
m
Ga
l
p
e
r
/
J
.
Pr
o
v
i
s
o
r
Da
v
i
d
Fr
e
e
m
a
n
Sa
m
Ga
l
p
e
r
/
J
.
Pr
o
v
i
s
o
r
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 None visible
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
21
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5B
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
3
7
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
E.
Fo
s
t
e
r
St
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
Mo
d
e
r
n
e
3 None visible
22
0
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
7
2
Ur
b
a
n
e
t
i
c
s
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
Co
.
Ja
c
k
Ch
e
r
n
o
f
f
Ur
b
a
n
e
t
i
c
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
Co
.
Ot
h
e
r
7
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) None visible
22
5
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
6
Mi
l
t
o
n
Go
t
t
l
i
e
b
Al
f
r
e
d
T.
Wi
l
k
e
s
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3 None visible
22
9
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
7
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
In
c
.
Ca
r
l
Ma
s
t
o
n
De
v
a
r
a
n
n
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
.
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 Some windows replaced
23
4
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Vi
l
l
a
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
3
H.
M
.
Ri
e
s
e
M.
L
.
Ri
e
s
e
n
b
u
r
g
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 None visible
30
2
‐31
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Ni
d
a
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
nt
s
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
1
Al
l
e
n
H.
St
u
m
p
f
/
C
o
n
ra
d
Ha
r
t
g
e
r
i
n
k
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 Soft ‐story retrofit –beams and columns replaced (1998); Assessor lists 1945 as second date
30
5
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
6
1
Jo
s
e
p
h
Ly
o
n
s
Sa
m
Re
l
s
b
o
r
d
Jo
s
e
p
h
Ly
o
n
s
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
4
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) None visible
31
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Bi
a
r
r
i
t
z
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
5
Ca
s
a
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
.
Be
r
g
m
a
n
&
He
r
z
o
g
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) None visible
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
32
3
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
7
7
Er
n
e
s
t
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Fr
i
e
d
m
a
n
To
g
a
w
a
&
Sm
i
t
h
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ot
h
e
r
2 Wood railing added to existing first floor patio walls; some windows replaced (2001)
32
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
6
Fr
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
La
i
s
t
,
Es
q
.
No
r
m
a
n
J.
Hu
n
t
e
r
,
AI
A
Wi
l
s
o
n
Br
o
t
h
e
r
s
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 New balcony railings added; security gate added
40
1
‐40
9
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Lu
c
i
l
l
e
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
nt
s
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
3
Mo
r
r
i
s
Es
k
i
n
d
C.
F
.
Kn
o
w
l
t
o
n
Mo
r
r
i
s
Py
n
v
o
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 None visible
40
4
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
7
1
Er
n
e
s
t
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Fa
r
r
e
l
T.
Mi
l
e
s
Er
n
e
s
t
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Ho
l
l
y
w
o
o
d
Re
g
e
n
c
y
3
(s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
nean parking) Converted into condo (1979); re ‐stuccoed (1999)
41
5
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Mo
n
i
c
a
Ma
n
o
r
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
3
Le
o
Gr
e
e
n
w
a
l
d
Sa
m
u
e
l
Th
e
o
d
o
r
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 None visible
41
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Co
r
a
l
Ga
b
l
e
s
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
5
Ca
s
a
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
.
Be
r
g
m
a
n
&
He
r
z
o
g
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) Awning added
42
1
‐42
7
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
1
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 None visible
43
5
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
8
Da
v
i
d
Pe
t
n
i
c
k
Di
n
g
m
a
n
&
Wi
l
b
u
r
Wi
l
s
o
n
Br
o
t
h
e
r
s
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 None visible
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
43
7
‐44
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
8
Ar
t
h
u
r
W.
Ba
r
u
c
h
J.
V
.
Ke
m
p
H.
Ko
r
c
h
a
k
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 Doors replaced
43
8
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Ca
r
l
t
h
o
r
p
Sc
h
o
o
l
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
7
6
Ot
h
e
r
2 Multiple additions; window replacements; roofline alterations (alterations in 1988, 1997, 1998)
44
5
‐44
9
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
0
A.
J
.
Pa
l
m
q
u
i
s
t
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
C.
Ca
r
t
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 Some windows replaced
44
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
6
2
Ot
h
e
r
3 Primary façade completely altered, roofline modified, window and door openings altered, windows and doors replaced (alterations in 1977 and more recently)
45
0
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
8
0
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
ms
,
Lt
d
.
Sk
i
n
n
e
r
/
B
o
u
e
y
We
s
t
e
r
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
Ot
h
e
r
4 None visible
45
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Se
a
c
l
i
f
f
5B
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
1
Me
l
v
i
n
L.
We
b
b
He
n
r
y
J.
Mi
l
l
e
r
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3 None visible
50
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
7
9
Le
w
i
s
C.
No
b
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
n & Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
Ka
m
e
n
Gr
i
f
f
e
n
‐Kr
e
b
s
Do
n
Gr
a
y
Ot
h
e
r
3 All windows and french doors replaced; balcony enclosed (1995)
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
51
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
6
9
Na
t
e
We
i
s
s
m
a
n
Wi
l
k
e
s
&
St
e
i
n
b
r
u
e
c
k
Na
t
e
We
i
s
s
m
a
n
Ot
h
e
r
4
(p
a
r
k
i
n
g
at first story) Some windows replaced; front court wall added/replaced; balcony railings replaced; primary door replaced; awnings and signage added; steps re ‐tiled; converted into condo (1996)
51
5
‐52
1
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
8
Dr
.
J.
Wi
l
l
o
u
g
h
b
y
Ho
w
e
Le
o
n
a
r
d
Jo
n
e
s
Be
r
t
Da
l
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 None visible
51
6
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
6
2
Er
n
e
s
t
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Al
f
r
e
d
T.
Wi
l
k
e
s
Au
e
r
b
a
c
h
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
3 Wall cladding replaced (stone tile on primary façade and walkway); primary doors replaced; hedge added Assessor lists 1967 as second date
52
2
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
1
Li
l
l
i
e
H.
Co
w
d
e
r
y
/
C
.
J
. Uh
r
i
g
Fr
e
d
C.
Sn
e
l
l
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 Reclad in textured stucco; some side windows replaced; security doors added to rear entries
52
8
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
No
n
‐
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
N/
A
N/
A
N/A Vacant lot (building demolished)
54
0
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Be
r
m
u
d
a
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
4
Ed
w
a
r
d
L.
Fi
n
c
h
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 Security gate added
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A:
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
b
l
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
As
s
i
g
n
e
d
Co
d
e
St
a
t
u
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
St
y
l
e
Number of Stories Alterations
60
8
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
5
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 New glass tile added to primary façade; vinyl gate added; pool removed from courtyard
61
4
‐61
8
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
5B
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
4
8
Sa
m
u
e
l
Wi
d
r
e
&
So
n
s
,
In
c
.
Ed
i
t
h
No
r
t
h
m
a
n
Sa
m
u
e
l
Wi
d
r
e
&
So
n
s
,
In
c
.
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Co
l
o
n
i
a
l
Re
v
i
v
a
l
2 Walkway repaved
63
0
Sa
n
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bl
v
d
Th
e
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
5D
3
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
19
5
5
Ca
s
a
Vi
c
e
n
t
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
.
Be
r
g
m
a
n
&
He
r
z
o
g
Mi
d
‐Ce
n
t
u
r
y
Mo
d
e
r
n
2 None visible
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
135 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)135 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Teriton
130-142 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Teriton
130-142 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
123-133 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)123-133 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
211 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)211 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
201 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)201 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Overcliff Manor
150-156 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Overcliff Manor
150-156 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
Villa Vicente
234 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Villa Vicente
234 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
229 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)229 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
212 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)212 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
326 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)326 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Biarritz
316 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)
The Biarritz
316 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Nida Apartments
302-312 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)
Nida Apartments
302-312 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
Coral Gables
416 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Coral Gables
416 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Monica Manor
415 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Monica Manor
415 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Lucille Apartments
401-409 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Lucille Apartments
401-409 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
437-441 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)437-441 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
435 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)435 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
421-427 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)421-427 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
The Colonial
515-521 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Colonial
515-521 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Seacliff
451 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Seacliff
451 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
445-449 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)445-449 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
608 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)608 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
The Bermuda
540 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)
The Bermuda
540 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
522 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)522 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Contributing Properties
The Pacific
630 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2009)
The Pacific
630 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
614-618 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)614-618 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Non-Contributing Properties
323 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)305 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
225 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)220 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
202 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)153 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Non-Contributing Properties
511 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)502 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
450 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)446 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
Calthorp School
438 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
404 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
APPENDIX B: Photo Log
Non-Contributing Properties
Vacant lot
528 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
516 San Vicente Boulevard (ARG, 2015)
1
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: November 9, 2015
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District,
15ENT-0278
Consideration of a recommendation to be forwarded to City Council
concerning the creation of a new historic district affecting certain
properties along San Vicente Boulevard, generally between Ocean
Avenue and Seventh Street.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Various
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
INTRODUCTION
The Commission will be conducting a public hearing to forward a recommendation to City
Council concerning the formation of a new San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard A partment
Historic District generally along both sides of San Vicente Boulevard between Ocean
Avenue and 7th Street.
BACKGROUND
The San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District has been previously evaluated
as part of the City’s ongoing historic resource survey efforts. Through citywide historic
resources surveys in 1983 and again in 1995, the district was identified as eligible for its
significant concentration of apartment buildings constructed during the 1930s, 1940s, and
early 1950s. In the most recent update to the Historic Resources Inventory (“HRI”) the
area was recommended as eligible as a historic district composed of a notable grouping
of apartment buildings dating from the late 1930s to the 1950s. Particularly noteworthy
are the variety of architectural styles that incorporate a courtyard in their design and
setting. This feature is thought to be a unique, unifying element that provides a sense of
community and identity for the neighborhood.
In early 2014, the Commission reinitiated its discussion and analysis of this concentration
of courtyard property types through the creation of a subcommittee to review, analyze
and possibly recommend preservation strategies , in recognition of changes that could
2
potentially threaten the integrity of the neighborhood. The properties along both sides of
San Vicente Boulevard, between Ocean Avenue and 7 th Street were included within the
study area.
Simultaneously, the City Council took proactive measures to simplify the process for
creating historic districts. Previously, if a historic district were proposed and if 50 percent
plus one of the owners within the district boundaries were in opposition, the district could
not be formed and was automatically nullified. With its adoption of Ordinance 2476 (CCS)
on December 16, 2014, the Council eliminated this owner nullification clause. Although
the provision for automatic nullification was eliminated, the passage of this ordinance
does not diminish the public’s ability to express views, including opposition to a potential
district, through the public process and community outreach.
The conclusion of the subcommittee was that the timing was ideal to pursue the creation
of an historic district. One of the City’s contracted historic consultants, Architectural
Resources Group (“ARG”) was engaged to conduct more in-depth study of the corridor
and prepare a detailed report that would supplement the application with pertinent
information that:
Describes the history of the area to provide contextual considerations;
Recommends a period of significance;
Describes the potential boundaries of the district and identifies those properties
that could potentially contribute to its historic significance; and,
Provides a recommendation relative to the designation criteria established in the
Landmarks Ordinance for the creation of an historic district.
This report is provided as Attachment 1.
On July 13, 2015, the Commission received a preliminary assessment of the proposed
study area, and held a discussion on the potential merits of creating an historic district.
The Commission also discussed the boundaries of the potential district, noting that four
buildings at the northeast corner of the study area (605, 621, 527 and 537 San Vicente
Boulevard were non-contributors on the edge of the potential district and removed them
from within the potential district boundaries. The Commission also noted that 301 Ocean
Avenue should be excluded as its integrity has been significantly diminished with on-going
construction. Recognizing that the overall integrity of the potential district appeared in
tact and satisfied with the projected boundaries of the proposed district, as discussed and
amended, the Commission filed the required application.
3
HISTORIC DISTRICT ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
Once an application is filed, the Landmarks Ordinance mandates a specific entitlement
process and details the timeframes for completing each step along the way. These
timeframes are tight and leave little room for flexibility. Any missteps could be fatal to the
application. Below is a summation of the process with restrictions noted. Actual and
projected dates are included:
July 13, 2015
Historic District Application Submitted and Determined to be Complete
NO PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED TO ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT;
HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS FOR REPAIR WORK CAN BE GRANTED.
September 9, 2015
Public Information Meeting
To be held within 60 days of Application being deemed COMPLETE
(no later than September 11, 2015)
Public Notice 10-20 days prior to meeting
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants
November 9, 2015
Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing
To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after
the filing of a Complete application
(No earlier than October 24, 2015, no later than January 9, 2016)
Public Notice 10-20 days prior to meeting
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Owners/Residents within 300 feet of boundary
The Landmarks Commission must make a recommendation within 45 days of its initial hearing date or
the application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
(no later than December 24, 2015)
4
December 15, 2015 (tentatively scheduled)
City Council Public Hearing
To be held within 45 days from Landmarks Commission recommendation
(no later than December 24, 2015, if the Commission makes a recommendation on November 9th)
(no later than February 23, 2016, if the Commission recommendation occurred on the latest possible
date for its recommendation, January 9, 2016)
Public Notice 10-20 days prior to meeting
Notice in Newspaper
Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Owners/Residents within 300 feet of boundary
The City Council must make a determination within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the
application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
(no later than January 29, 2016, if the Commission makes a recommendation on November 9th)
Historic Districts are approved by Ordinance
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The proposed San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District generally
encompasses those multi-family residential properties along both sides of San Vicente
Boulevard between 1st Court and 7th Street, with some exceptions. It contains multi-
family courtyard apartments, apartment houses, and condominiums, as well as a private
elementary school (the Carlthorp School), and a vacant lot. Within the proposed district
boundaries, there are 40 properties. Buildings are predominantly two and three stories in
height; the tallest building in the area is seven stories tall. The majority of the buildings
date from the postwar period; the earliest building in the district was constructed in 1937
and the latest in 1996.
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE
The period of significance for the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartme nts Historic
District begins in 1937 and ends in 1956. Buildings constructed after 1956 signify a shift
from the courtyard apartment property type to higher density apartment houses and
condominiums. Properties of the post-1956 timeframe do not embody the mid-20th
century courtyard apartment property type; they lack the essential character-defining
features of the type, including access to the courtyard from the street, dwelling units facing
the courtyard, exterior corridors, and rear parking.
5
6
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PROPOSED DISTRICT
The proposed district encompasses 40 properties. Of these, 26 have been determined
to be contributors, which is 65 percent of the properties. For assessment purposes, a
property was determined to be a contributor to the proposed historic district if:
It relates to the historic contexts/themes which are significant in the potential
Historic District. In the case of the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment
Historic District, all properties have buildings that were constructe d in the mid-20th
Century and have architectural styles typically associated with this era. Their
overall layout includes plans that surround a landscaped open space courtyard.
It was constructed during the period(s) of significance which has been determined
to be 1937 to 1956 for the proposed district; and
It retains sufficient integrity to reflect its significance.
Buildings that do not meet these criteria are considered to be non -contributors to the
proposed historic district.
All contributors to the proposed district are generally designed in a modest and vernacular
version of one of four architectural styles: Streamline Moderne, American Colonial
Revival, Minimal Traditional, or Mid-Century Modern. Most have also experienced some
alterations but not significant enough to diminish their respective integrity. They are still
able to express a sense of time and place appropriate to the mid -century.
Streamline Moderne - One contributing property in the proposed district, 3.8 percent.
Streamline Moderne architecture emerged in the 1930s and is often cons idered to
be a later subtype of the Art Deco style. Whereas Art Deco architecture is typically
brightly colored and richly decorated, Streamline Moderne is sparse,
unornamented and monochromatic. The Streamline Moderne style offered a
modern aesthetic and streamlined appearance appropriate to the motor age and
automobile culture in Southern California. The Study Area’s earliest surviving
courtyard apartment was constructed in the Streamline Moderne style.
The one contributor of this style is located at 212 San Vicente Boulevard .
Common character-defining features of the Streamline Moderne style include:
Smooth stucco cladding
Curved surfaces, such as rounded corners and/or bays
A flat roof, often with banded coping at the parapet
Projecting bands accenting the façade between stories and emphasizing
horizontality
Minimal use of applied ornament
Multi-paned steel casement windows, often arranged in bands
Circular accent windows
7
American Colonial Revival - Six contributing properties in the district, 23.1 percent.
American Colonial Revival architecture experienced a resurgence in popularity in
the 1920s and continued to be applied to both single - and multi-family properties
in Santa Monica and throughout the greater Los Angeles area through the 1950s.
A number of courtyard apartments in the proposed historic district are examples of
American Colonial Revival architecture. American Colonial Revival elements are
applied to several Minimal Traditional-style buildings in the district as well.
The six contributing properties of this style are located at 201, 211, 302 -312 (The
Nida Apartments), 415 (Monica Manor), 515-521 (The Colonial), 614-618 San
Vicente Boulevard.
Common character-defining features of the American Colonial Revival style
include:
Front or side gabled roofs
Wood clapboard siding, sometimes applied in combination with stucco
cladding
Double-hung wood sash windows, often with divided lights
Shutters at windows
Pediments over entryways
Columns or pilasters at entries (either as porch supports or surrounding
doorways)
Minimal Traditional - Six contributing properties in the district, 23.1 percent.
The Minimal Traditional style emerged in the late 1930s and was popular through
the mid-1950s. Minimal Traditional buildings often reflect the form of Period
Revival buildings, but lack the ornament and decorative detailing of the Period
Revival style. Although most often thought of as a single-family house style,
Minimal Traditional apartment buildings are not uncommon; multiple examples
exist within the Study Area.
The six contributing properties of this style are located at 123 -133, 135, 401-409
(Lucille Apartments), 435, 437-441, 445-449 San Vicente Boulevard.
Common character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional style include:
Low-pitched hipped roofs, typically with narrow eaves
Smooth stucco cladding, often used in combination with clapboard, brick
or stone veneer
Minimal applied ornament
Steel casement windows
At times, stripped down decorative features such as shutters or pilasters
8
Mid-Century Modern – Thirteen contributing properties in the district, 50 percent.
The Mid-Century Modern style emerged after World War II and was influenced by
an early and influential tradition of Modernism in Southern California, which found
precedents in Europe’s International Style. Modern architecture in the postwar era
was widely applied to all property types, including residential, commercial, and
institutional, many of which were designed by some of Southern California’s most
influential architects. In general, Mid-Century Modernism rejected previous
architectural traditions and historicist styles, instead embracing new, innovative
materials and technologies and prioritizing function over form. A number of Mid-
Century Modern courtyard apartments and apartment houses are extant in the
Study Area.
The thirteen contributing properties of this style are located at 130-142 (The
Teriton), 150-156 (Overcliff Manor), 153, 225, 229, 234 (Villa Vicente), 305, 316
(The Biarritz), 326, 416 (Coral Gables), 421-427, 451 (The Seacliff), 522, 540 (The
Bermuda), 608, 630 (The Pacific) San Vicente Boulevard.
Common character-defining features of Mid-Century Modern architecture include:
Stucco cladding at times used in combination with other textural
elements, such as brick or
concrete block
Low-pitched or flat roofs, often with wide, cantilevered overhangs
Horizontal elements such as fascias that cap the front edge of the flat
roofs or parapets
Aluminum-frame windows grouped within horizontal frames
Oversized decorative elements or decorative face-mounted light fixtures
Prominent graphic signage at front façade, often displaying apartment
name and address
EVALUATION OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the potential district’s
eligibility based on the criteria discussed below. The City’s historic consultant believes
that the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District appears eligible
under three of the designation criteria described in SMMC 9.56.100 (A), Criteria 1, 4 and
6, and the additional four criteria as described in SMMC 9.56.100 (B). Staff concurs and
recommends the following findings:
9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The Study Area satisfies this criterion by exemplifying major patterns in Santa
Monica’s history, as an excellent and distinctive concentration of courtyard
apartments. Courtyard apartments are a multi‐family housing type that emerged in
9
the 1920s and were a popular form of multi‐family housing in Santa Monica and
throughout Southern California through the 1950s. Responding to the temperate
climate of the region and the growing popularity of multi‐family living among
middle‐ and upper‐middle income residents in the years preceding and following
World War II, courtyard apartments are an important regional dwelling type in the
architectural history of Southern California. Although courtyard apartments are
relatively common in the larger area, it is rare to find a geographic concentration
such as that which exists on San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica. Therefore,
the district is significant as exemplifying patterns of multi‐family housing in Santa
Monica and trends in regional dwelling types, in particular the courtyard apa rtment.
9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
The proposed historic district contains buildings constructed in a variety of
architectural styles, including Streamline Moderne, American Colonial Revival,
Minimal Traditional, and Mid‐Century Modern. Although the district has value as a
concentration of the courtyard apartment property type, the buildings themselves
are typical examples of their styles; their artistic values are not highly significant,
unusual, or noteworthy. Therefore, the historic district does not meet this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with impor tant events in local,
state, or national history.
The San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District was originally subdivided
in 1905 by the Palisades Investment Company and the Alta Santa Monica
Company as part of the Palisades tract. Original owners of the tract included H.M.
Gorham, R.C. Gillis, C.L. Bundy, and J.J. Davis. Although each of the original
subdividers was significant in the development of early S anta Monica, their
influence is not reflected by the built environment within the proposed district area.
Furthermore, research did not reveal that the district is significant for its association
with a single tenant or owner. Therefore, it does not meet this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study
of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type valuable to such a study.
The historic district satisfies this criterion as an excellent collect ion of 1930s to
1950s courtyard apartments in Santa Monica. As demands for high density, multi‐
family housing have continued to grow in Santa Monica, intact groupings of smaller
scale, multi‐family properties have become increasingly rare in the city.
Contributing properties in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District
are low-scale courtyard apartment buildings with open plans partially or fully
surrounding exterior landscaped courtyards. Consistency of scale, plan, layout,
and style distinguishes the proposed district area from other residential
10
neighborhoods in Santa Monica. Thus, the district co ntains buildings that embody
the distinguishing characteristics of the courtyard apartment dwelling type; in
addition, it is a rare contiguous concentration of the property type in Santa Monica.
9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
A number of builders, designers and architects were involved in the dist rict’s
development, including a few architects of note, including Carl Maston and Edith
Northman. As no individual or company singularly influenced its development, the
district is not a significant or representative example of the work of a notable builder
or architect. The historic district does not satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(A)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
Multi‐family courtyard apartments comprise the majority of the Stu dy Area,
distinguishing it from adjacent neighborhoods, which are almost exclusively single‐
family residential in composition. Additionally, the district’s setting is distinctive due
to its location on San Vicente Boulevard, a major corridor that originally had
streetcar tracks running down its center and is now occupied by a 50 ‐footwide
median featuring regularly spaced coral trees. Due to its distinctive location along
San Vicente Boulevard and its unique multi‐family residential composition in
northwest Santa Monica, the proposed district is an established and familiar visual
feature in the city. Therefore it meets this criterion.
Historic District Criteria
9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6).
The proposed district appears to satisfy Criteria 9.56.100(a)(1), 9.5 6.100(a)(4),
and 9.56.100(a)(6), as described above. Thus, the district appears to meet this
criterion.
9.56.100(B)(2). It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a
definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which
contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or
architectural quality.
The proposed district contains a significant concentration of courtyard apartments,
a popular multi‐family housing type in Southern California from the 1920s to the
1950s. Though a few courtyard apartments within the district were constructed
prior to World War II, the majority of contributing properties were built in response
to Santa Monica’s postwar housing demands. As all contributors in the district are
courtyard apartments, all have L‐, O‐, I‐, C‐, or U‐shaped plans that partially or fully
surround a landscaped courtyard. Since most properties were constructed after
World War II, popular 1940s‐1950s architectural styles, including American
11
Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Mid‐Century Modern, are prominent in
the district. Thus, the district is composed of a concentration of similar multi‐family
property subtypes that are united aesthetically by their plans, scale , appearance,
and architectural styles. For these reasons, it appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(3). It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated
with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive
examples of park or community planning.
The proposed district area was originally subdivided as part of the Palisades Tract
in 1905. Initial development of the district paralleled the development of the
surrounding area, as a number of large single‐family residences lined this stretch
of San Vicente Boulevard by 1918. However, by the 1920s, small apartment
houses, bungalow courts, and courtyard apartments began filling empty lots
between single‐family dwellings, and by 1937, the district was zoned for multi‐
family residential development. Development of the district increased substantially
during Santa Monica’s population boom after World War II. By the late 1950s, two‐
and three‐story courtyard apartment complexes had filled empty lots and replaced
smaller multi‐family dwellings and single‐family houses. To this day, the district
reflects multi‐family residential development patterns, and in particular, the
popularity of courtyard apartment housing, in Santa Monica during the postwar era.
Therefore, it meets this criterion.
9.56.100(B)(4). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
Since the proposed district meets Criterion 9.56.100(a)(6), it also satisfies this
criterion.
COMMUNITY INPUT
As mandated by the Landmarks Ordinance, staff conducted the required community input
meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Santa Monica Main
Library. Approximately 60 members of the public were in attendance. The general
consensus was positive and in favor of designation. There were questions concerning
the Mills Act and other benefits to be afforded contributors. The treatment of non -
contributors was of concern. It was noted that future evaluations may alter the status of
the non-contributors as the district’s history continues to evolve. Members of the public
also noted that the character of the community is more than the architecture of buildings,
it is also reflected in the landscape features that are prevalent such as the pepper and
palm tree groupings, and the San Vicente Boulevard medians. Attendees believe that
the creation of the district will have a positive impact on property values.
12
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Landmarks Commission forward a recommendation to
the City Council to adopt and designate by ordinance the San Vicente Boulevard
Courtyard Apartments Historic District as Santa Monica's third historic district.
NEXT STEPS
Staff intends to bring back a regulatory review matrix for Commission discussion and input
which will specify how alterations to both contributors and non-contributors within the
proposed district will get approved and the level of review for each. Staff anticipates that
the regulatory review procedures and entitlements that have been adopted by ordinance
for the regulation of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District will be used as a
baseline for the development of the proposed San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard
Apartment Historic District regulatory review protocols. At such time, staff also anticipates
a discussion and possible recommendation for incentives for non -contributors within the
proposed district. Throughout the designation process, one of the more frequent
concerns expressed by members of the public was the treatm ent of non-contributors and
the benefits that might be available to such property owners.
In the interim, staff proposes that the designation ordinance will, as with the other two
districts at the time of their respective formation , mandate that until such time as that
second ordinance is passed, all alterations to contributors and non-contributors shall
require the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for any alterations and/or
modifications affecting or having the potential to affect the buildi ng’s exterior. Staff will
recommend that the ordinance specify that all Certificate of A ppropriateness fees be
waived for both non-contributors and contributors during that interim time period.
ATTACHMENTS
1. San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, prepared by
Architectural Resources Group, October 20, 2015
2. Public Notice
Proposed San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District
Historic District Entitlement Process
Historic District Application Submitted
July 13, 2015
Application Submitted: Landmarks Commission files a COMPLETE application for
consideration of creating an historic district affecting certain properties along portions
of San Vicente Boulevard
Public Information Meeting
To be held within 60 days of Application being deemed COMPLETE
(no later than September 11, 2015)
September 9, 2015
Meeting Held: Santa Monica Main Library, Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium,
6:30 p.m.
Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing
To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after the
filing of a Complete application
(No earlier than October 24, 2015, no later than January 9, 2016)
November 9, 2015
Hearing Held: Landmarks Commission recommends adoption of an ordinance
creating the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District
City Council Public Hearing
To be held within 45 days of Landmarks Commission recommendation
(no later than December 24, 2015)
December 15, 2015
Initial Hearing: The Landmarks Commission and Staff recommend Council adopt an
ordinance creating the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District.
The City Council must make a determination within 45 days of its initial hearing date (no later
than January 29, 2016) or the application is deemed DISAPPROVED.
Historic Districts are created by Ordinance