SR 09-27-2022 9A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 9.A
1 of 25
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Deny Application to Designate
305 San Vicente as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0247, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to
deny the designation of the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City
Landmark; and
2. Deny Designation Application (20ENT-0119) to designate the property located at
305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the findings contained
in this report.
3. If the City Council approves the appeal and the application to designate the
property as a City Landmark, as described in “Alternative Actions” adopt the
alternative findings under “California Environmental Quality Act Compliance”.
Summary
On April 27, 2020, the Appellant, H. Joseph Soleiman submitted Landmark Designation
application 20ENT-0015 on behalf of Mid Century SV LP, owner of the property located
at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. The application materials included an historic
assessment report that was prepared for the subject building by Audrey von Ahrens of
GPA Consulting (GPA). (Attachment B). The GPA report concluded that the “building is
eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a
significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel
Reisbord”, and did not analyze whether the property met any of the other six Landmark
criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A).
9.A
Packet Pg. 331
2 of 25
At the request of the City, and due to a change in process precipitated by the COVID-19
pandemic, Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC) prepared a Peer Review
Assessment of the GPA report. (Attachment C). The OAC Peer Review Assessment
concluded that the property does not appear to be eligible for designation as a Santa
Monica Landmark under Criterion 5. Staff evaluated the Appellant’s materials, including
the GPA Report, as well as the OAC Peer Review Assessment and recommended the
Commission deny the application to designate the property at 305 San Vicente
Boulevard as a Santa Monica Landmark.
On October 12, 2020, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the
property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark under the criteria set forth in the
Landmarks Ordinance. For consideration in making its decision, the Commission was
presented with evidence, including the Appellant’s application materials and materials
presented by GPA, oral testimony from GPA, the OAC Peer Review Assessment, the
analysis and recommendation included in the oral and written staff reports, and all
public correspondence received prior to and during the hearing. The materials can be
found on the Landmarks Commission’s agenda for the October 12, 2020 meeting (Item
10-C), and the Landmarks Commission meeting agenda is attached (Attachment J).
9.A
Packet Pg. 332
3 of 25
After consideration of all the evidence and full discussion, the Landmarks Commission
determined that the property does not meet any of the designation criteria for the
property to be designated a City Landmark and denied the application for designation.
On October 22, 2020, the Appellant, on behalf of the property owner, Mid Century SV
LP, filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the
application for designation (Appeal 20ENT-0119), attached.
The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its appeal: 1) the application
was held to a new and different standard than other applications to designate a
Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic assessment of the property prior
to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing; 2) public comments in support of the
designation application were not considered; and 3) the Peer Review Assessment
prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the information included in the
nomination application.
Staff has reviewed the Appellant’s three primary claims:
• The designation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the
Landmarks Ordinance and emergency procedures in place at the time.
• The comments Appellant claims were omitted from oral public comment were
forwarded to the Commission and posted online prior to the meeting in a manner
consistent with procedures in place at the time.
• The statements Appellant claims were inaccurate are supported by the record.
With the appeal, the Appellant submitted a second historic assessment dated
December 30, 2020 that was prepared by GPA. In the updated/additional analysis,
GPA found the property eligible under four criteria for designation as a City Landmark:
• Criterion1, as an important example of its type;
• Criterion 2, as having aesthetic interest;
• Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-Century
Modern style; and
9.A
Packet Pg. 333
4 of 25
• Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel
Reisbord.
As with the assessment that was submitted with the application materials, the City
requested that OAC provide a peer review of the updated GPA assessment. OAC
conducted a thorough analysis including:
• Reviewed the initial landmarks Designation application;
• Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, various ordinances and
survey updates;
• Reviewed all the materials considered at the October 12, 2020 Landmarks
Commission hearing;
• Conducted additional research on the property history;
• Reviewed relevant National Park Service (NPS) guidance; and
• Analyzed the assessment report and findings included in the GPA updated
assessment.
Based on the materials submitted by the Appellant with the application and the appeal,
including the GPA assessments, the analyses provided by OAC, evidence received
prior to and during the Commission’s public hearing on October 12, 2020, staff
recommends that Council 1) deny the appeal; and 2) deny the application to designate
the property a Landmark.
Background
Historic Resource Designation Application
The applicant (property owner) for the designation application submitted information to
support designating the property located at 305 San Vicente as a City Landmark under
criterion SMMC Section 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” as part of their April
27, 2020 application.
9.A
Packet Pg. 334
5 of 25
After the appeal was filed, GPA provided a revised/additional assessment, dated
December 30, 2020. The revised assessment found that the property is eligible under
four of the six criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.56.100(A): 1, 2, 4, and 5. The
appeal/revised assessment asserts that the property is an important example of its type
(1), has aesthetic interest (2), embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-
Century Modern style (4) and is a significant example of the work of notable architect
Samuel Reisbord (5).
Upon close analysis, the property appears to have undergone significant changes after
the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, and therefore does not retain sufficient integrity to
embody the characteristics described in the GPA report. Further, if the property
remained fully intact, it would not necessarily be a representative or exceptional
example of its type, style, possess aesthetic merit of its style, or represent a significant
example of the work of a notable architect.
City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance Santa Monica Municipal
Code (SMMC) 9.56
Adopted in 1976, the stated purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District
Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is:
[T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such
procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to:
A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s
cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.
B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied
and reflected in such improvements and areas.
C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.
D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents,
tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to
business and industry.
E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for
the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City.
9.A
Packet Pg. 335
6 of 25
The ordinance further establishes procedures and standards intended to achieve these
purposes. Among these procedures, the SMMC grants the Landmarks Commission the
power to designate Landmarks and Structures of Merit. The Commission has the option
to designate an improvement as a Landmark or Structure of Merit to allow the City to
protect and enhance improvements that are found to meet certain criteria to support
either designation. Currently, there are 136 designated City Landmarks, 14 designated
Structures of Merit, and 5 Historic Districts within the City.
To guide the exercise of discretion by the Landmarks Commission in designating
Landmarks and the Council in approving or disapproving the actions of the Landmarks
Commission, SMMC 9.56.100(A), sets forth six Landmark Designation Criteria:
[T]he Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a
structure, improvement, natural feature, or an object if it finds that it meets one or
more of the following criteria:
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.
9.A
Packet Pg. 336
7 of 25
In accordance with the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council reviews the
Commission’s designation of a Landmark, as well as any related decisions de novo
when an appeal is filed. The Council may review and take action on all determinations,
interpretations, decisions, judgments or similar actions taken that were in the purview of
the Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the
prior determinations and decisions of the Commission.
Property Information and Architectural Description
The building, constructed in 1961, is rectangular in plan and organized around a
courtyard with a swimming pool in the front setback. While the building contains details
in the courtyard that are well-designed, the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is of
simple design and construction primarily clad in stucco with simple stucco and metal
railings, and aluminum windows.
The GPA materials (application and assessment) identify the building at 305 San
Vicente Boulevard as designed in the Mid-Century Modern style. The Mid-Century
Modern style was prevalent in the Los Angeles region from the 1930’s through the
1970’s and has experienced a resurgence in popularity over the past 10-15 years.
There are many fine examples of Mid-Century Modern architectural design in single-
family residential structures. Multi-family structures tend to be primarily characterized by
the simplicity of features and construction.
The subject building exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco
Box apartment typology, popular from the 1950’s thru the 1970’s. The architectural style
of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as
“Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low/simplified style that takes some characteristics
of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The
smooth stucco surfaces, clean rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows,
slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing, integrated parking, flat roof with light wells,
and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior courtyard is typical of this style.
Figure 1: Photo of Subject Property
9.A
Packet Pg. 337
8 of 25
Property History/ Integrity Evaluation
An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured rows of
long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that
spanned the entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and
engaged plastered planter boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature;
however, is no longer extant on the building, but for the single remaining fascia board
trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has greatly impacted the
architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent, as shown in the original
perspective, below.
Figure 2: Original Rendering of Subject Property
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and
Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University of California Santa
Barbara (UCSB) campus as well as the extant fascia board at the front eave line, this
unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s overall
design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical
9.A
Packet Pg. 338
9 of 25
façade. A review of the permit history on file with the City indicates this series of
decorative fascia trim boards was most likely damaged and removed following the 1994
Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the earthquake the City’s emergency
response teams began conducting building inspections throughout the community. The
building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment
building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes
on the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural
engineer stated the building had severe cracking of walls with obvious severe damage
and distress. The property was then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1,
1994, the building was re-inspected with field notes that stated the anchor bolts on the
building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The “ornamental wall face at front
of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to expose additional
anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia boards
were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had
displaced, but posed no immediate hazard. Upon concluding the second inspection, the
building was issued a “green tag” and in the coming months was stabilized and
repaired, as required.
Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible
from the public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century
Modern stylistic design intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front
elevation at grade level is now dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the
driveway leading into the parking garage, and the nondescript solid curving brick wall
that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and rear elevations of the
structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by flush set
aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails. In consideration of the
prior alterations made to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its
current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily
appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. OAC’s peer review states, and staff
agrees, that the property’s historical integrity of design, material, workmanship, and
feeling has also been affected. Therefore, the property does not appear to maintain all
aspects of integrity. Below are the aspects of integrity:
9.A
Packet Pg. 339
10 of 25
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
While the property has maintained its location and setting, its design, materials, feeling
and association have been significantly compromised.
Architect Samuel Reisbord
The GPA report states that the “building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica
City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work
of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord.” However, as the initial OAC peer review found,
and staff agrees, that while Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect whose collaborative
work spanned three decades, he does not appear to be a “notable architect” in Santa
Monica or the larger Los Angeles region. And while his work has been archived at
UCSB, it does not necessarily correlate that Mr. Reisbord was notable, as the collection
is expansive, including many California architects over many decades.
Typically, to be identified as a notable or “master” figure in a field (architect, builder,
designer, engineer, landscape architect, craftsman artist, etc.), the person is generally
9.A
Packet Pg. 340
11 of 25
recognized because of his or her consummate skill whose work is distinguishable from
others by its characteristic style and quality. Depending on the sphere of geographic
influence a notable person may be recognized locally for their quality of design and skill
or on a broader scale at the state or national levels (such as Frank Lloyd Wright). While
Mr. Reisbord was a prolific architect during this period, it does not appear that he was a
leader or innovator, or made significant contributions to architecture or the architectural
heritage of the local community or elsewhere. As stated in the OAC report(s), there are
seven known buildings designed by Mr. Reisbord in Santa Monica, and it does not
appear that they should be considered significant or representative works by the
architect. If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s
possible it would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the
building has been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he
were to be considered a notable architect.
Historic Context San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District
As with much of Southern California and Los Angeles County, Santa Monica’s
population skyrocketed during and after World War II. The Douglas Aircraft
manufacturing plant in Santa Monica employed thousands of local residents from the
1940’s into the postwar years. Following the war, the RAND Corporation provided
employment for hundreds of Santa Monica residents in the fields of mathematics,
aerodynamics, engineering, physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology. As
housing demands quickly exceeded supply, courtyard apartment complexes replaced
smaller multi‐family dwellings and the remaining single‐family residences along San
Vicente Boulevard.
Santa Monica’s population boom in the postwar era prompted the restructuring of the
City’s zoning ordinance to allow for higher density, multi‐family residential development.
Changes to Santa Monica’s zoning ordinance were further provoked by the rejection of
an application for the construction of a 120‐unit apartment building on San Vicente
Boulevard in 1952. Through the 1950s, a contentious battle ensued between
9.A
Packet Pg. 341
12 of 25
homeowners who opposed multi‐family residential development in their neighborhoods,
and developers who looked to profit from higher density construction.
By 1960, the block of San Vicente Boulevard between 4th Street and 7th Street was
zoned R3, Multiple Residential, limiting buildings to 45 feet (roughly four stories); the
block between 4th Street and Ocean Avenue was zoned R4, limiting building height to
12 stories. In 1975, due to concern for the “quality of life” for residents living in areas
zoned R3 and R4, new height restrictions enforced a 40‐foot (roughly three story) height
limit in R3 zones and a 6‐story height limit in R4 zones. Both R3 and R4 zoning required
minimum setbacks and a certain amount of private open space per unit. By the 1970s,
condominiums had surpassed lower density courtyard apartments as the most prevalent
form of multi‐family housing along San Vicente Boulevard. Today, the District comprises
courtyard apartments, apartment houses, and condominiums, dating from the late
1930’s to the mid‐1990’s. The area is currently zoned R2, Low Density Multiple
Residential, and building heights are limited to two stories.
The San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District was designated a Historic District
by the City Council in 2015. Its period of significance is defined as buildings
constructed between 1937 and 1956. As the subject property was constructed in 1961,
it is outside the period of significance and therefore a non-contributor to the Historic
District.
Landmarks Commission Action
The application was submitted shortly after Federal, State and local declarations of
emergency were issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, due to
actions taken to promote social distancing, the deadlines for reviewing and taking action
the application were extended and the public hearing was conducted remotely. Further,
due to the devastating impacts of the pandemic on the City’s budget, rather than
obtaining a separate historic assessment to evaluate of the application, City staff
obtained a peer review of the materials Appellant submitted with its application.
9.A
Packet Pg. 342
13 of 25
Specifically, due to measures taken to implement social distancing in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, deadlines for reviewing and acting on applications governed by
SMMC Article IX, including processing timelines for applications to designate a City
Landmark, were suspended in accordance with the Revised Fourth Supplement to the
Executive Order Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”).
The deadlines were subsequently tolled and then extended for two years under
subsequent supplements to the Executive Order due to the continuation of measures to
implement social distancing requirements, including the closure of City Hall and other
City facilities, that resulted in unavoidable delays in the City’s processing of planning
and permit related applications. In accordance with those supplements to the Executive
Order, the deadlines for the Landmarks Commission to review and take action on the
application were automatically extended.
From the time the application was filed until the matter was heard by the Landmarks
Commission, the Landmarks Commission’s meetings were governed, in part, by
provisions of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by the Governor on March 17, 2020,
which suspended the Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing, provided that notice
and accessibility requirements were met, the public was allowed to observe and
address the legislative body at the meeting, and the legislative body had a procedure for
receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals
with disabilities, specifying that this suspension would remain in place during the period
in which state or local public health officials have imposed or recommended social
distancing measures.
Prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency, although not expressly required by the
Landmarks Ordinance, the City’s standard practice was to obtain an historic resource
assessment for every designation application at the City’s sole cost. Applicants could
elect to submit their own assessments, which were considered by both City staff when
preparing a recommendation to the Commission, and the Commission when making a
determination.
9.A
Packet Pg. 343
14 of 25
With the devastating and unprecedented impacts to the local economy and the City’s
budget caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, the City became unable to
obtain historic assessments at its own cost. On June 23, 2020, the City Council
amended the application fees for designating a property as a City Landmark to include
the cost of obtaining an historic assessment. This allowed the City to obtain an historic
assessment of a property for which a designation application had been filed at the
applicant’s cost.
However, the Appellant submitted its application prior to this change in fees, and during
a time when the City’s budget did not permit for obtaining an historic assessment for the
property that analyzed all six Landmark criteria. Accordingly, the City elected to obtain
a more cost-effective peer review of materials received from the applicant in order to
complete its evaluation of the property and make a recommendation to the Landmarks
Commission for consideration. Other similarly situated applications were also evaluated
through the peer review process.
On October 12, 2020, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the
property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark. The Commission was provided with the
designation application materials which included GPAs original evaluation and OAC’s
peer review, as well as the staff report and written public correspondence that was
either provided prior to the meeting or read into the record during the hearing.
In consideration of all evidence, including written and oral testimony from
representatives for the Appellant, oral and written staff reports, historic preservation
consultant reports, and any other materials introduced into the public record, the
Commission voted unanimously to deny the designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard.
The audio recording of the October 12, 2020 meeting is posted on the City’s webpage:
http://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=4578.
On January 11, 2021, in accordance with SMMC 9.56.120(H), the Landmarks
Commission adopted a Statement of Official Action (Attachment F) setting forth the
findings to support its decision.
9.A
Packet Pg. 344
15 of 25
Appeal
On October 22, 2020, the Appellant filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks
Commission’s decision. The appellant makes three primary arguments to support its
appeal: 1) the application was held to a new and different standard than other
applications to designate a Landmark because the City did not obtain a full historic
assessment of the property prior to the Landmarks Commission’s hearing; 2) public
comments in support of the designation application were not considered; and 3) the
Peer Review Assessment prepared by OAC contains inaccurate statements about the
information included in the application materials.
The Appellant’s materials include an historic assessment prepared GPA dated
December 30, 2020 that analyzed whether the property was eligible for designation as a
City Landmark under all six of the Landmark criteria. In the updated/additional analysis,
GPA found the property eligible for designation under four criteria for designation as a
City Landmark: Criterion1, as an important example of its type; Criterion 2, as having
aesthetic interest; Criterion 4, as embodying distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-
Century Modern style; and Criterion 5, as a significant example of the work of notable
architect Samuel Reisbord.
Appeal Analysis
1. Application for 305 San Vicente was held to a new and different standard due to
process changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Appellant argues that the application for designation of 305 San Vicente as a
City Landmark was held to a new and different standard because the designation
process changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the City did not obtain an
historic assessment that analyzed the property’s eligibility under all six Landmarks
criteria. As discussed previously, staff did not solicit an independent assessment by
a historic preservation professional to evaluate the property against all six landmarks
criteria due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City’s budget.
9.A
Packet Pg. 345
16 of 25
However, the Landmarks Ordinance does not require that such a report be obtained
by the City as part of the designation process. Rather, SMMC 9.56.120(C) requires
staff to “conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a
recommendation to the Commission as to whether the improvement merits
designation.” While the City did not obtain an historic assessment that analyzed
each of the six criteria under the Landmarks Ordinance, staff did conduct an
evaluation of the proposed designation and made a recommendation to the
Landmarks Commission based on the information provided in the application and
the OAC Peer Review Assessment of the application materials, including the
contention that the property was worthy of designation because of its association
with Samuel Reisbord, a notable architect.
Additionally, for the appeal that is before the Council, staff has conducted a full
evaluation of additional materials that were submitted by the property owner. And,
staff further evaluated information received from the City’s consultant, OAC, who
conducted a peer review of the appeal materials and also obtained original
renderings and performed an analysis of the building permit history including an
analysis of historic integrity of the subject property.
Staff’s evaluation of the application and appeal materials is consistent with the
provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, and the Landmarks Commission’s decision
to deny the application for designation was based on substantial evidence presented
to staff and the Commission. Nonetheless, Council has been presented with
additional evidence for consideration on appeal.
2. Public comments, including multiple letters of support, were not properly
considered during the Landmarks Commission’s hearing.
Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, all written correspondence received by
noon the day of the meeting was posted online and forwarded to the Commission.
Any correspondence received after noon on the day of the meeting was read into the
record during the hearing. At the time of the hearing, instead of receiving “real time”
9.A
Packet Pg. 346
17 of 25
oral public comment, the Commission was accepting “real time” written public
comment. Members of the public could submit written comments to be read into the
record during the hearing in addition to any comment that was received after noon
the day of the meeting.
The correspondence identified by the Appellant was received prior to noon on the
day of the meeting. In accordance with the procedures in place at the time, the
comments were sent to the Landmarks Commissioners for their review prior to the
meeting and were not read into the record at the meeting. Therefore, the
correspondence was treated according to the protocols for public comment in place
since the start of the pandemic, which were consistent with Executive Order N-29-
20.
3. OAC’s peer review contains inaccurate statements.
Appellant argues that the Peer Review Assessment provided by OAC, which
analyzes the materials provided in the designation application, contains inaccurate
information. The Peer Review Assessment concluded that certain statements
contained in the GPA report submitted with the initial application are not fully
supported by evidence.
In the additional information provided by GPA on appeal, there appears to be
explanation of why this supporting evidence was not included with the initial
application materials, and the Appellant has provided additional information.
However, the statements made by OAC in the initial peer review were not
inaccurate. For example, the OAC peer review states that:
“…upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there
is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the
city…At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose
office was located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made
9.A
Packet Pg. 347
18 of 25
contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or
elsewhere”
The initial application outlines Samuel Reisbord’s career, identifying several well-
known architects he worked with. However, the initial application does not include a
substantive argument as to the importance of his contributions to the field of
architecture or the local community. While GPA might disagree with this statement,
and others included in the OAC report, the Appellant’s assertion that the OAC peer
review contains inaccurate statements is not supported by the record
GPA provided information regarding the property in the initial application, and it was
not a full assessment. Initial applications are not required to be full assessments.
Similarly, the peer review report by OAC was not a full assessment and focused on
the information included in the initial application. OAC provided a peer review of the
initial application, based on the information included in the application materials.
The subsequent assessment by GPA dated December 30, 2020 provided grounds
for the appeal and additional information regarding the subject property. Additional
information was provided as part of the assessment received as part of the appeal,
that in part, responded to OAC initial peer review comments. OAC also provided a
peer review of the GPA assessment.
Eligibility as Landmark Designation and Proposed Findings
To designate a property as a City Landmark, the Landmarks Commission, or the
Council on appeal, is required to find that the property meets one or more of the six
criteria set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and discussed in detail below.
The City hired OAC to provide a peer review of the GPA historic assessment provided
by the appellant/property owner. Based on the findings as provided in the OAC peer
review report, the consultant finds and staff agrees that the property does not appear
eligible as a Landmark under the City of Santa Monica Landmark as outlined below.
The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:
9.A
Packet Pg. 348
19 of 25
Criterion 1
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The property does not exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history or development of Santa Monica.
The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is
one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to
meet the demand for housing. The design rationale for these ubiquitous postwar multi-
family buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building
materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not
only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The
subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal
representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is
not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential
development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a
continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-World War II period
within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s
postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone
exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development
pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable
modifications to its primary (front, south) façade thereby impacting its historical integrity
of design, workmanship, material, and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately
sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize,
or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 1.
9.A
Packet Pg. 349
20 of 25
Criterion 2
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other
noteworthy interest or value.
According to the guidance from the National Park Service (NPS), “a property is eligible
for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it
expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express
aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.”
Although the NPS guidance is not incorporated into the Landmarks Ordinance criteria, it
has been the City’s practice to refer to NPS guidance to inform discussion of the criteria.
The subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it
eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and
the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed
from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley.
Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or
unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the
community.
As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960’s
was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is
possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated
planters exist. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or
artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 2.
9.A
Packet Pg. 350
21 of 25
Criterion 3
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important
events in local, state or national history.
No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the
property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important
events in local, state, or national history.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
SMMC 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.
Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim
features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears
ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar
period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the
unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods
used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The
subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor
would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not
necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-of-
way, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of
commonly used materials.
The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common
podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950’s,
9.A
Packet Pg. 351
22 of 25
1960’s, and early 1970’s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard
property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style
that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and
popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous
appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street
presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive,
unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the
entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways),
integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated
internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way.
As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not
visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to
elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general
public.
The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as
such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or
architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 4.
Criterion 5
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed
on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in
the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and
associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord is recognized for his
prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles
region. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings,
9.A
Packet Pg. 352
23 of 25
schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and
community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and
long career and was a prolific architect. However, he was not a leader or innovator and
did not substantially contribute to the canon of architecture.
Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known
apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950’s,
1960’s, 1970’s). The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does
not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the
removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was
once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack
of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically
“reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment
building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by
Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact
representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.
If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it
would be a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has
been altered and does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be
considered a notable architect.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 5.
Criterion 6
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic,
or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or
the City.
The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment
Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does
9.A
Packet Pg. 353
24 of 25
not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established
or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to satisfy
Criterion 6.
At its October 12, 2020 meeting, the Landmarks Commission denied the designation of
the property commonly known as 305 San Vicente Boulevard. Staff agrees that the
property does not merit designation and recommends the City Council deny the appeal
and deny the Landmark designation based on the findings set forth above and
contained in the draft Statement of Official Action, attached.
Alternative Actions
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the
following if supported by the full evidentiary record:
1. Articulate alternative findings, approving the subject appeal and approving the
subject property as a Landmark.
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a
public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, CEQA would not be
applicable.
Alternative Findings
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that approving the appeal and designating the property as a
Landmark will result in any significant effect on the environment. This determination is
based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the
designation of the property as a Landmark will promote the retention and preservation
of historic resources, the designation would not result in any physical change to the
property, and any future physical changes would be subject to subsequent CEQA
review.
9.A
Packet Pg. 354
25 of 25
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended
action.
Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA
B. 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice
C. 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application
D. 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application
E. SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020
F. STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial
G. GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced
H. SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc
I. 10-12-2020 LC Minutes
J. Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020
K. Written Comment
9.A
Packet Pg. 355
1
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20ENT-0247
LOCATED AT 305 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD
AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. On April 27, 2020, the property owner, H. Joseph Soleiman representing
Mid Century SV LP, filed a nomination for the multi-family residential building located on
the subject property for the property to be considered for designation as a City
Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 12,
2020 hereby finds that the subject building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does
not meet one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as
enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100. On October 22, 2020, the property owner, MID
CENTURY SV LP, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s determination. The City
Council, on appeal, having held a Public Hearing on May 10, 2022 hereby denies the
designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on the following
findings:
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of
numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the
demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings
was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject
property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but
elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the
impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar
development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of
multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the
community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-
World War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with
City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies,
symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the
City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to its primary (front,
south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling.
Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and
accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural
history of the City.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 1.
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
2
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy
interest or value.
According to the guidance from the National Park Service (NPS), “a property is eligible for its
high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an
aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or
design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” the subject property does not
possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of
the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard
area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San
Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily
epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic
or artistic value to the community.
As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960s was
designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that
other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist. As for
the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value
necessary for designation under Criterion 2.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 2.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in
local, state or national history.
No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the property
were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local,
state, or national history.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 3.
(SMMC 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.
Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim
features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible
for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick
and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at
that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa
Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and
period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction,
or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural
design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
3
not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-of-
way, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly
used materials.
The subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium
style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and
early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best
characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics
of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration
of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the
building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not
necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design
features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors
(walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are
integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-
way. As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not
visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any
positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.
The apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such
is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture.
There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 4.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the
original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives
of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated
ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in
designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region. His designs
covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract homes, private
residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment
buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career, and was a very prolific architect.
However, he was not a leader or innovator and did not substantially contribute to the cannon of
architecture.
Reisbord’s professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment
buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The
subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant
or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century
Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of
the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard
area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
4
typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property,
though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a
truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career.
If the exterior of the subject property had not been significantly altered, it’s possible it would be
a representative example of Mr. Reisbord’s work. However, the building has been altered and
does not represent the work of Mr. Reisbord, even if he were to be considered a notable
architect.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 5.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic
District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does not have a
unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood.
Therefore, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not satisfy Criterion 6.
SECTION ll. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately
reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on May 10,
2022 as determined by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record of the
proceedings relating to this designation. All summaries of information contained
herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The
absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
5
particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
Respectfully Submitted
May 10, 2022
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
Attest:
Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0247 305 San Vicente Blvd Council Appeal STOA (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 20ENT-0247 Appeal of Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a City
Landmark
APPLICANT: H. Joseph Soleiman
PROPOERTY OWNER: MID CENTURY SV LP
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal 20ENT-0247 of the Landmarks Commission’s determination to deny Landmark Designation
application 20ENT-0119 of the multi-unit residential property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard as a
City Landmark.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting
but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public
hearing via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room
102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of
the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public
record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed
instructions on how to comment in person.
Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: Appeal: Denial of Designation of 305 San Vicente Boulevard
VIA EMAIL: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Stephanie Reich at
(310) 458-2200 ext. 5460, or by e-mail at stephanie.reich@santamonica.gov. For disability-related
accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least
72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall
and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and
is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic
Center Parking Structure (validation free).
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División
de Planificación al número (310) 458-2275.
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 305 San Vicente City Council Appeal notice (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San
City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.smgov.net
09/18
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
Applications must be submitted by appointment at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica,
CA 90401. To schedule an appointment or if you have any questions completing this application please call City Planning at (310) 458-8341.GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:
Land Use Element District: Zoning District:
Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:
APPLICANT
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Subject improvement is generally known as:
Existing use(s) of site:
Rent control status:
Status: Occupied Unoccupied
Recognized in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory: Yes No
Condition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins Unexposed
Threats: None Private Development Vandalism
Public Works Project Zoning Other:
This part to be completed by City staff
Received By: Amount Paid: $
Date Submitted: Check No.:
NOTES TO
APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections of this application and submit all required materials. Incomplete
applications will not be accepted for filing.
Landmarks
Commission meets on the second Monday of each month.
The applicant, representative, or legal owner familiar with the project must be present at the
Landmarks Commission meeting.
A decision on
designation is rendered at the hearing. All decisions by the Landmarks
Commission are subject to a 10-day appeal period. An official appeal form and fee schedule is
available at the City Planning Division Public Counter. Appealed projects will be scheduled for
a hearing before the City Council.
305 San Vicente Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90402
R2Low Density Housing
4293 002 015 22,391 sq ft
H. Joseph Soleiman
(310)770-5199
j@xyz.rent
CONTACT PERSON (if different) (Note: All correspondence will be sent to the applicant)
Name: Audrey von Ahrens, Architectural Historian II, GPA Consulting
Address: 617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90014
Phone: (310) 792-2690 Fax:
Email: audrey@gpaconsulting-us.com
Relation to Applicant: Historic Preservation Consultant
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
(310) 770-5199
Multi-family residence
Rental
Registered
X
X
X
X
X
2800 Olympic Blvd. Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
ex. 125
Mid Century SV LP
2800 Olympic Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90404
20ENT-0119
Scott Albright 851.9004/27/2020
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Page 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ~ Please Note ~
The following property and historical information identified below
must be provided in order for your application to be determined
complete by the City Planning Division.
You may provide information on additional sheets of paper.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:
Statement of architectural significance:
Statement of historic importance:
NOTES TO
APPLICANT
For more information on designation procedures, refer to
SMMC Section 9.56.
Please see Attachment A.
Please see Attachment B.
N/A
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Page 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Person(s) of historic importance:
Local State National
Statement of other significance:
FOR STRUCTURES ONLY:
Date of construction: Factual Estimated
Source:
Architect/Designer/Engineer:
Contractor/ Other builder:
Architectural Style:
Historic Use of Structure(s):
Present Use of Structure(s):
Is/Are structure(s) on original site: Yes No Unknown
Is/Are structure(s) threatened with destruction: Yes No Unknown
If yes, state reason:
N/A
None.
Documents and publications that relate directly to proposed improvement (bibliography):
Please see Attachment C.
1961 X
Los Angeles County Tax Assessor
Samuel Reisbord
Mid-Century Modern
Multi-family residence
Multi-family residence
X
X
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Page 4 APPLICATOIN REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS – all items must be provided
Completed Application.
Payment of Fee, if applicable.
Payment of Fee is WAIVED for Non-Profit Organizations. Documentation demonstrating Tax-Exempt Status must be included with this application and at the time of filing to be eligible for a Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application fee waiver.
Staff will confirm non-profit organization status prior to deeming this application complete.
Eight (8) sets of labeled Color Photographs of the building elevations or improvement on 8½" x 11"
paper (Color photocopies are acceptable).
Any information you feel would be of assistance in reviewing the application, such as original plans,
old photos, or other historical information.
For structures only: if applicant is requesting approval of modifications, please submit all materials requested for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application.
I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge.
____________________________________________________
Applicant’s Name (PRINT)
_________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
X
X
X
X
H. Joseph Soleiman
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
ATTACHMENT A - DESCRIPTION
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
Page 1
Description
The Imperial Apartments at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a multi-family apartment building
originally constructed by then owner Joseph L. Lyons in 1961 as a four-story, wood-frame building
with 36-units on the upper three floors over ground floor parking.1 The Imperial Apartments building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord.
The building takes up the majority of its rectangular parcel. It has a rectangular plan organized
around a central court and a network of exterior, elevated walkways. The building is oriented southeast towards San Vicente Street. It is set back from the sidewalk by an in-ground pool west
of the main entrance constructed in 19622 and surface parking to the east, where there is also a
Mid-Century Modern sign that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS,” designed and constructed by
Local Neon in 1962.3 The pool is protected from the street by a curved wall made of square concrete blocks. In the center of the front setback there are two trees planted within one tree
well. The building has a narrow setback from the adjacent buildings on each side and abuts a
rear alley on the northwest. The building has a flat roof clad in rolled roofing. On the primary elevation, the eaves extend out
over balconies but are flush with the exterior wall otherwise. The extended eaves have wide fascia
boards clad in smooth stucco. The fascia boards at each balcony are connected by thinner boards, creating an open gap between the thinner fascia boards and the exterior wall. The result
is the appearance of a light, continuous, notched band along the façade’s roofline. On the other
elevations, the roof eaves overhang the exterior walls and feature simple, flat fascias.
The exterior of the building is clad in smooth stucco. The primary elevation is divided vertically into
two parts. The first story is asymmetrical and its design expresses its functions of providing vehicular
and pedestrian access. The three upper stories are symmetrical and express their functions as
apartment units.
The first story is divided into three parts horizontally. At its center is a wide, rectangular opening for
vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage. The primary pedestrian entrance is to the
west. It is recessed beneath the upper stories and faces east, perpendicular to the street. The door is aluminum and glass. Flooring at the entrance is terrazzo. The exterior wall to the east of the
pedestrian door is clad with white and gold ceramic tiles. The exterior wall to the west of the
pedestrian door is floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames. Two round columns clad in small,
square, white ceramic tiles with gold tiles scattered throughout, separate the glass walls from the pool area to the south and support the overhanging upper stories. East of the central vehicular
entrance the exterior wall features are tall, narrow, rectangular openings that provide light and
air into the ground floor garage. Fenestration on the upper three floors is organized into four bays. The inner two bays have sliding
aluminum windows above planter boxes adjacent to wide balconies accessed by large sliding
aluminum doors. The balconies have simple metal railings. The upper balconies shelter the balconies below. The outer two bays consist of smaller corner balconies on each floor, also with
aluminum, sliding sash doors. The front wall plane of all balconies on the primary elevation extends
below its corresponding floor level creating a notched appearance similar to the roof fascia.
1 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Building Permit No. B29952, June 16, 1961.
2 Building Permit No. B30967, January 22, 1962.
3 Building Permit No. B31470, April 20, 1962.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
Page 2
The east elevation is asymmetrical. On the north end of the first story are three, recessed metal
doors for storage/utility spaces, including a trash enclosure, and a stairwell to the upper floors. The
doors are accessible via a concrete walkway from the rear alley. Fenestration on the first floor consist of short, fixed windows with textured wire glass protected by metal security bars. On the
upper floors there are recessed balconies within rectangular openings with slightly projecting
concrete slab floors and simple metal railings. They each have sliding aluminum doors and are
flanked by a number of aluminum sliding-sash windows. Small louvered metal vents are along the floorplates of each floor. The west elevation is similar to the east elevation with punched window
and balcony openings.
The rear of the building overlooks a narrow alley. The elevation is a simplified version of the primary elevation. The first story is recessed beneath the upper floors, supported by round concrete
columns. At the center of the first story is a rectangular opening to the ground floor parking. The
opening has an accordion-style metal gate. The driveway has a gradual slope that descends into
the garage, flanked by low concrete walls. The vehicular opening is flanked by two bays of parking on each side, at grade with the alley, such that they overlook the ground-floor parking
within the first story of the building. This opening is partially enclosed by metal security bars on the
west. The east side is partitioned off from the garage by concrete walls. Fenestration on the upper
floors is similar to that of the primary elevation and organized into four similar bays. The openings are almost exactly the same with the addition of a narrow opening at the center of the second
story that leads to the interior courtyard. A balcony extends the full length of the interior two bays
on the second story. Like that of the primary elevation, the interior two bays have aluminum sliding sash windows flanked by wide, recessed balconies with sliding sash doors. There are no built-in planters on this elevation. Within the balconies, each side wall has short jalousie windows. The end
bays consist of narrow balconies with sliding sash doors flush with the exterior wall plane.
The apartments are all arranged around a large, rectangular interior courtyard on the second
floor. The courtyard is accessed by a stairwell leading from the recessed main entrance. The
exterior walls within the courtyard are clad with a lightly textured stucco. The floor is concrete with
bands of terrazzo tile that extend the width of the courtyard, framing the paired apartment entrances on the second story. The courtyard has an open floorplan, interrupted by large,
geometric, poured in place concrete planters. Shelter is provided by walkways that connect the
apartments on the upper two floors. Narrow walkways extend the full length of the courtyard from
the south to north. These walkways are lined with low walls clad in stucco with metal caps. Two wider walkways extend the width of the courtyard and are flanked by floating planters that are
elevated from the concrete slab floor of the walkway by two metal poles, creating a “floating”
effect. The top of the planters have been sealed off by metal and wood covers. On the fourth
floor, only the wide walkways that extend the width of the courtyard are covered by a flat roof; the narrow walkways that span the length of the courtyard remain unsheltered. The doors to the
apartment units are wood slab doors. Fenestration within the courtyard consist of groupings of
large, floor to ceiling jalousie windows. Lighting consists of recessed can lighting within the exterior
courtyard.
Alterations
The Imperial Apartments building is in overall good condition and is remarkably intact. Other than ongoing maintenance, such as re-roofing, re-painting, and replacing the structural beams of
courtyard walkways, there have been no major alterations to the building’s exterior. The plexiglas
panel on the freestanding sign was present at the time of the site visit, but due to obvious damage, it has since been removed. See Attachment E for copies of building permits.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
ATTACHMENT B – STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Page 1
Statement of Architectural Significance
The Imperial Apartments building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark
under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect,
Samuel Reisbord.
Samuel Reisbord4 (1904-1985) was born in Kiev, Russia to Jewish parents Wolf and Bessie. They
immigrated to the United States in 1905 and resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to
the 1910 United States Federal Census, his father was a proprietor in the iron railings industry.5 By 1920, Sam and his family, which now consisted of three sisters and brothers, resided in a home they
owned on Ludlow Street in Philadelphia.6 He attended the University of Pennsylvania and
graduated in 1929 with his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture. Upon graduating, Reisbord worked
in local Pennsylvania offices. In 1931, he married Philadelphia native and journalist, Jeanette Markowitz.7 In 1932, Reisbord and Jeanette moved to the Soviet Union where he spent the next
seven years. Reisbord began working with Albert Kahn who at the time was consulting architect
to the State Industrial Design Trust in Moscow and designed buildings and assisted in the creation of the Moscow subway. Jeannette worked for the Moscow bureau of the New York Times and the Russian Fur Trading Board. They were ordered out of Russia at the beginning of World War II and
Riesbord, Jeanette and their two sons escaped via the Trans-Siberian railroad to Japan and
landed in Hawaii in 1940.8 In 1940, Reisbord and his family resided in Honolulu where he worked as an architect at U.S. Military bases Hickam Field and Pearl Harbor.9 Between 1943 and 1944,
Reisbord was an architect for the Canol Project, a sub-Arctic pipeline and refinery project for
Bechtel, Price, Callahan and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
and Alaska.10 By 1944, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he and his family moved to Los Angeles, where he would remain until his death in 1985.
From 1944 to 1946, Reisbord worked as a designer for Los Angeles-based master architect Paul R.
Williams.11 In 1946, Reisbord became principal of his own firm and also appears to have worked as an associate at the firm Eisenshtat and Lipman in the early 1950s.12 In the late 1950s, he
partnered with architect Fred Posner on many projects. He then joined forces with Jerrold M. Caris
in 1965 and formed Reisbord & Caris, a partnership that lasted until 1969 when he established his
own firm, Sam Reisbord & Associates. Reisbord was an AIA member from 1947 until his death.
4 Various spellings of the last name, Reisbord, have been recorded throughout the years, including: Reisburd, Reisborg, Relsbord and Reisdorf.
5 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
6 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
7 Ancestry.com, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phstart=successSource.
8 Legacy.com, “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001, accessed online March 30, 2020,
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744.
9 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
10 Online Archive of California, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168, accessed March 10, 2019, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/; Samuel Reisbord
papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
11 Online Archive of California.
12 “Community Center Has Preview: West Side Jewish Installation to Be Dedicated April 26,” Los Angeles Tomes, April 14, 1954, A1.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Page 2
Reisbord had a prolific career as an architect. His association with more well-known master
architects, such as Albert Kahn, Paul Williams, and Sidney Eisenshtat, speaks volumes of his talent,
though his work stands alone. Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial buildings, as well as community centers;
however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century
Modern and courtyard apartments, for which he is best known.
Over the course of his prolific career Reisbord’s list of notable projects include: the Beverly Carlton
Apartments in partnership with Alvin Lustig, now the Avalon Hotel (9400 W Olympic Blvd, Beverly
Hills, 1948); Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center (1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles, 1951);
Westside Jewish Community Center as associate at Eisenshtat and Lipman (5870 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, 1953); 16-unit Modern-style apartments at 2046 14th Street (Santa Monica, 1954)13;
the Wilshire Twilighter Hotel, now Dunes Inn14 (4300 Wilshire Blvd, 1958); and Plush Horse Inn Hotel
(1700 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, 1960).
Other examples of his Mid-Century Modern Apartments include: Holt Villas15 (432 S. Holt Avenue,
Los Angeles, 1954); Jewell Gardens Apartments, now Westwood Chateau (456 Landfair Avenue,
Los Angeles, 1955); Carlton Park Apartments (5916 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, 1956); and 823-25
Fairview Avenue Apartments in partnership with Fred Posner16 (Arcadia, 1958).
While the above works are all extant, many of Reisbord’s projects have been demolished over
time, particularly those apartments and commercial buildings located in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Some examples include: 8567 Beverly Blvd; 1676 N Orchid Avenue; 712 N Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia; Sunset Center Hollywood (no address found); Warner Victory Center (no
address found); Mark-Stephens office building (8467 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles).
The Imperial Apartments is a highly intact and significant example of notable architect Samuel
Reisbord’s work in Santa Monica. It was constructed toward the middle part of Reisbord’s lengthy
and prolific career. He practiced until at least 1969. The building is also one of only two known
apartment buildings of his extant in Santa Monica.
The Imperial Apartments exemplify Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to
the multi-story apartment housing type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms create
a dynamic composition on both the exterior facade and interior courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining bold, geometric forms and simple details that
when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting
composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide
efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes. The Imperial Apartments is, therefore, a
representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord and eligible for designation as a Santa
Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
13 2046 14th St. was identified as an “architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park,” in the City of Santa
Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement; Architectural Resources Group and Historic
Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement, (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018), 134.
14 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel was picked up by SurveyLA as “an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”; HistoricPlacesLA.org, “Dunes Inn,” accessed April 4, 2020, http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54; “Completion of $1 Million Hotel Set for
April,” Los Angeles Times, Mar 9, 1958, G13.
15 “$150,000 Unit,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1954, E8.
16 “Near Completion,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Page 3
Character-Defining Features
• Rectangular plan
• Flat roof
• Extended eaves and fascia on primary elevation
• Smooth stucco exterior finish
• Symmetrical fenestration pattern of upper stories on primary elevation
• Asymmetrical ground floor on primary elevation
• Punched window and balcony openings
• Aluminum frame windows and doors
• Balconies with planes extended below the corresponding floor on the primary elevation
• Wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage
• Tall, narrow openings at ground floor of the garage
• Pedestrian entrance on primary elevation
• Terrazzo floor
• White and gold ceramic tiles
• Floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames
• Round columns
• Pool and curved wall made of square concrete blocks
• Mid-Century Modern “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” freestanding sign frame
• Central court and network of exterior, elevated walkways
o Wood slab apartment unit doors
o Jalousie windows
o Floating planters along walkways
o Geometric concrete planters
o Concrete and Terrazzo floors
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography
ATTACHMENT C – BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography
Page 1
Bibliography
Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020,
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
Ancestry.com. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018. Accessed Online March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phsta
rt=successSource.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning &
Community Development Department, October 20, 2015.
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018.
City of Santa Monica Building Department. Building Permits. Various Dates.
HistoricPlacesLA.org. “Dunes Inn.” Accessed April 4, 2020. http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54.
Legacy.com. “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times. September 12, 2001. Accessed
Online March 30, 2020.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744.
Lopez, Matt. “City OK’s List of Master Architects.” Beverly Hills Courier, June 5, 2012. Accessed
Online. March 27, 2020. https://bhcourier.com/2012/07/05/city-oks-list-master-architects/.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Sam Reisbord and Associates” Accessed March 10, 2020. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/sam-reisbord-and-associates.
Online Archive of California. “Biographical/Historical Note.” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord
papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/.
“Samuel Reisbord papers.” Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v. “Reisbord, Sam(uel).” Accessed April 1,
2020.
https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd10369
55.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 1
ATTACHMENT D – PHOTOGRAPHS
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 2
Figure 1: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 2: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 3
Figure 3: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 4: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 4
Figure 5: Imperial Apartments, north elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 6: Imperial Apartments, west elevation. View looking southeast. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 5
Figure 7: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 6
Figure 8: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 7
Figure 9: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 3rd floor. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Page 8
Figure 10: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 4th floor. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 11: Imperial Apartments, sign detail, front yard. View looking east. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment E, Building Permits
Page 1
ATTACHMENT E – BUILDING PERMITS
(Includes only building permits that pertain to physical building alterations—
excluding mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits)
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
(310) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number Filed: _____________
By: _____________
APPELLANT NAME: _________________________________________________
APPELLANT ADDRESS: ______________________________________________
CONTACT PERSON: __________________________ Phone: _______________
(all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
Address:_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : ______________________________________
PROJECT ADDRESS: ________________________________________________
APPLICANT: ____________________________________________________
ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: _________________________________________
ACTION BEING APPEALED: _________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20ENT-0247 - Appeal of of the decision to deny Landmark Designation 20ENT-0119
Appeal Filed 10/22/2020
$540.57 Appeal Fee paid
on 10/22/2020
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):
Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed
project? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, which
conditions and why:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to design issues? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian
orientation, etc.? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? ___ Yes
___ No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? ___ Yes ___
No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Is the appeal related to other issues? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT SIGNATURE: ________________________________________________
NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient
information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City
Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451 HISTORICS@AOL.COM
1
Ostashay & Associates
consulting
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 10/05/2020
From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC
Re: PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application
(Landmark)
Overview
At the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, City
Planning Division, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) conducted a peer review of the City
Landmark designation application assessment prepared by GPA Consulting1 for the property located
at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica. The following information is provided to you for your
information and use.
This peer review addresses the adequacy of the GPA prepared landmark application for the subject
property. Our review in performing the peer review included an assessment of the designation
application and conclusionary findings; site visit of the property; and additional data collection and
research of building permits, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerial photographs, prior survey
assessments of the site and area, and the collection and review of other primary and secondary
sources. A review for accuracy, clarity and understanding, and validity of the information provided in
the application narrative was also conducted as part of the peer review.
Introduction
Generally, peer reviews of historic resources assessment reports are conducted to reassure lead
agencies requesting the assessments that the identification and evaluation efforts performed are
adequate, that the eligibility determinations made are logical and well supported, and that the
document will, if necessary, facilitate environmental compliance under the provisions of CEQA.
Review of historic resources documents for quality control is an essential part of the environmental
planning process.
As a primer, historic resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. Federal laws
provide the framework for the identification, evaluation, designation, and in certain instances,
protection of historic resources. States and local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification,
recordation, landmarking, and protection of such resources within their communities.
1 Audrey von Ahrens, GPA Consulting. “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Designation Application (Landmark), 305
San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402,” submittal date April 27, 2020.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark)
2
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, promulgated standardized practices and
guidelines for identifying, evaluating, and documenting historic properties (Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines [Preservation Planning, Identification, and Evaluation]). The State Office of
Historic Preservation (OHP) and most local government agencies in California, particularly those
agencies qualified as Certified Local Governments (CLGs), recognize these practices and guidelines and
recommend their use in order to maintain objectivity and consistency in the preparation of historic
preservation documents and survey assessments.
Peer Review Assessment
OAC has peer reviewed the GPA prepared landmark application related to the property located at 305
San Vicente Boulevard for overall adequacy and the property’s potential local landmark eligibility.
General comments on the application and assessment findings are as follows:
Designation Application (Landmark)
The City designation application completed for the subject property is in support of formally listing the
building a Santa Monica Landmark. The submitted application narrative provides responses to the
specific statement questions listed in the “Background Information” section of the application in the
form of “attachments.” Hence, this application is not a full historic landmark assessment report and
should not be considered or reviewed as such. Nonetheless, the responses provided in the application
should be well-researched, factual and accurate, and based on relatable contextual themes to justly
support consideration of the property as an eligible Santa Monica Landmark. The following peer
review comments align with the narrative responses given to the specific statement questions listed
in the “Background Information” section of the submitted application form.
• Description of site or structure, note any major alterations and dates of alterations
The response to this statement is presented as Attachment A of the GPA application. In reviewing
Attachment A, the provided descriptive narrative of the structure is adequate though there are some
references and statements that need further clarifying and elaboration. For ease of understanding the
narrative and as standardized practice it is highly recommended that the labeling of the building’s
elevations use true directional compass points - north, south, east, and west and identify its primary
and secondary elevations. Identifying the building’s side, front, and rear elevations (besides identifying
them only by direction or primary) would also help to further discern the property on its parcel.
The discussion regarding prior alterations made to the property is limited and defers the reader to the
building permits provided in the application as Attachment E. As part of the description narrative
there should be a discussion that clearly identifies and explains what changes have been made to the
building and where. Such a narrative provides a continuum of its evolutionary building history. The
cosmetic and structural damage sustained from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, for instance, should
be addressed and explained as part of the architectural and integrity narrative. Reference that the
building is in overall good condition is also not clarified or differentiated in terms of integrity or
physical condition. This aspect of the property’s history is not currently provided in the description
narrative and should be further expanded and explained.
In general, it is recommended that the description narrative, particularly the alteration history, be
reviewed and verified; thoroughly researched; clarified and corrected, as necessary; and further
expanded and explained as part of the narrative for this portion of the application.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark)
3
• Statement of architectural significance
The response to the “statement of architectural significance” is presented as Attachment B in the
application. In reviewing Attachment B, the narrative provides biographical information on architect
Samuel Reisbord, a summary of his known work in Southern California, and concludes that the subject
property is eligible for City landmark listing under Criterion 5, as a representative work of notable
architect Sam Reisbord (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(5).
However, upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there is question
as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city. The claim that Reisbord had a
prolific career is also questionable as the supporting primary and secondary sources collected as part
of the peer review process indicates instead that he had a very diverse and long career that stretched
around the globe. His professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven (7) known
apartment buildings in Santa Monica that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).2 However,
the landmark application states that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is one of only two
known apartment buildings in Santa Monica designed by Reisbord. His early Modern work outside the
local community from the late 1940s with designer Alvin Lustig was noted in Arts & Architecture
magazine and Architectural Forum, but none of his later work appears to have been recognized in any
professional publications or given any type of notable award by his peers. Typically, to be identified as
a notable or “master” figure in a field (architect, builder, designer, engineer, landscape architect,
craftsman artist, etc.), the person is generally recognized because of his or her consummate skill
whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. Depending on the
sphere of geographic influence a notable person may be recognized locally for their quality of design
and skill or on a broader scale at the state or national levels (think Frank Lloyd Wright). At this time,
there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was located in Los Angeles, was
accomplished in his field and made contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the
local community or elsewhere. There is also no comparative evaluation of the seven known local
resources designed by Reisbord to determine if they should be considered significant or
representative works by the architect. In any case, because of insufficient evidence, lack of thorough
research, and erroneously cited information provided in the landmark application as well as from
counter-evidence discovered during the peer review process, the architect Samuel Reisbord does not
appear to qualify as a notable designer or architect. In addition, there is currently no conclusive
information to claim that the subject property should be considered a significant or representative
work in amongst itself. Therefore, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property does not appear to satisfy
the City’s Landmark Criterion 5 for being a significant or representative example of the work of a
notable builder, designer, or architect. As the property does not qualify for Santa Monica Landmark
recognition, the identification of character-defining features itemized in the application becomes
irrelevant.
• Statement of historic importance
The statement of historic importance field is identified as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark
application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted.
2 Samuel Reisbord Papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of
California, Santa Barbara.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark)
4
• Person(s) of historic importance
The person(s) of historic importance statement field is noted as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark
application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted.
• Statement of other significance
The statement of other significance field was identified as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark
application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted.
• Bibliography
The bibliography information is presented as Attachment C in the application. The citation of
references and supporting documents included in the GPA prepared landmark application is limited,
though not unexpected based on the limited contextual history provided in the application narrative.
The application also includes photographs of the subject property (Attachment D) and all of the
property’s building permits (Attachment E).
Interestingly, the application does not include any supporting historical references, newspaper or
magazine articles, historical photographs, or other relevant primary and secondary sources to further
support the historical narrative and fully justify the significance finding of the property under Santa
Monica Landmark Criterion 5 (a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect).
Conclusion
In reviewing the GPA prepared landmark application the material presented lacks sufficient evidence
and clear persuasive arguments to currently support the landmark designation of the 305 San Vicente
Boulevard property. Because of inadequate evidence, lack of thorough research, and erroneously
cited information provided in the landmark application as well as from counter-evidence discovered
during the peer review process, the architect Samuel Reisbord does not appear to qualify as a notable
designer or architect under the City’s historic preservation ordinance (SMMC 9.56 Landmarks and
Historic Districts) and the subject property does not appear to be a significant or representative
example of work completed by a notable architect or designer. Therefore, the property does not
satisfy Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 5 (SMMC 9.56.100(A) for which it is currently under
consideration.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark)
5
ATTACHMENT A:
“City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Designation Application (Landmark)
305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402
(prepared by GPA Consulting, submitted date April 27, 2020)
[UNDER SEPARATE COVER]
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
1
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20ENT-0119
LOCATED AT 305 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD
AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. On April 27, 2020, the property owner, H. Joseph Soleiman representing
Mid Century SV LP, filed a nomination for the multi-family residential building located on
the subject property for the property to be considered for designation as a City Landmark.
The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 12, 2020 hereby
finds that the subject building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not meet one
or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC
9.56.100 based on the following findings:
Landmark Designation Criteria:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
The subject property is a multi-family building in the Mid-Century Modern style of relatively
simple design and construction. While there may be some interesting aspects and details
of this particular structure, the buildings of this style, type and construction are ubiquitous
in multifamily neighborhoods in Santa Monica and throughout the Southern California
region. Further, the property is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment
Historic District as it is outside its period of significance and therefore does not exemplify
the architectural history of the City as does the contributing properties or the District as a
whole. Therefore, the property does not appear to exemplify the cultural, social, economic,
political or early architectural development history of this particular area of the North of
Montana neighborhood.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a modest example of the Mid-
Century Modern style as expressed in a multi-family residential structure that is simple in
its overall design and includes common features style and era. The building does not
possess particular noteworthy concepts of design, or of aesthetic or artistic interest or
value. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history.
No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the
6-B
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305
2
property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important
events in local, state, or national history. Accordingly, the subject property does not
appear to satisfy this criterion.
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a
period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type valuable to such a study.
The subject building is a typical example of a Mid-Century Modern design expressed in a
multi-family structure. Additionally, the building is not a unique or rare example of an
architectural design, detail, or historical type, and it does not embody distinguishing
characteristics valuable to study. Therefore, the subject residence does not appear to
satisfy this criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect.
The subject building is a typical example of a Mid-Century Modern design expressed in a
multi-family structure. Additionally, the building is not a unique or rare example of an
architectural design, detail, or historical type, and it does not embody distinguishing
characteristics valuable to study. Therefore, the subject residence does not appear to
satisfy this criterion.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic
District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does not have a
unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this
criterion.
SECTION II. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately
reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica
on October 12, 2020 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green, Sloan, Summers, Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum, Chair
Genser
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
NAYES: None
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305
3
decision. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the Landmark and Historic
District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter
9.56, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
Respectfully Submitted
January 11, 2021
Roger Genser, Chairperson
Attest:
Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305
Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal
Date: December 30, 2020
For: Santa Monica City Council
Subject: 305 San Vicente Boulevard
From: Audrey von Ahrens, Architectural Historian II
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, historically known as The Imperial Apartments, is a
multi-family apartment building originally constructed in 1961 by then owners Joseph A. and Leo
N. Lyons and designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord. GPA
Consulting (GPA) submitted a Santa Monica Landmark Application for the property on April 27,
2020 on behalf of the property owner. The application was presented to the Landmarks
Commission during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation application
20ENT-0119). The Commission voted to reject the application. The property owner believes that
the application did not receive a thorough and adequate review by either staff or the Commission
due to procedural issues caused by changes to the Landmark review process under the COVID-
19 emergency ordinance. GPA has been retained by the property owner to prepare this report in
support of their appeal of the determination made by the Landmarks Commission based on the
merits described herein.
Figure 1: 305 San Vicente Blvd, view looking north. GPA, March 2020.
This Landmark Assessment Report evaluates and formally supports the property’s eligibility as a
City of Santa Monica Landmark. GPA evaluated the property under the six Santa Monica
Landmark criteria and assessed its physical integrity. As a result of this analysis, GPA concludes that
the property is significant under Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5, and retains sufficient physical integrity to
convey this significance; therefore, it appears to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica
Landmark.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 2
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to support the appeal of the determination of the Landmarks
Commission during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation application
20ENT-0119) to reject the item with the application. The appeal is based on the following merits:
• Due to changes in funding, the initial Landmark Application, submitted on April 27, 2020,
was subjected to a peer review only, rather than a full, independent Landmark Assessment
Report by one of the City’s on-call consultants. The peer review erroneously concluded
that the application, which in fact meets all the requirements on the official Landmark
application form, should meet the requirements of a full Landmark Assessment Report,
typically prepared by one of the City’s consultants once an application is received. In
other words, the application filed was held to a new, different standard than has ever
been required of such an application. Neither the property owner nor GPA (representing
the property owner) were notified of this change and the application was determined to
be incomplete and insufficient, despite meeting all of the application requirements. GPA
was given no opportunity to revise the application to meet the new requirements before
it was presented to the Commission. If GPA had been informed of the change in
procedure, we could have provided any additional information requested in support of
the application.
• Public comments, including multiple letters of support for the application, and concerns
over the lack of transparency in the processing of this application, were not read during
the hearing for consideration. It is worth noting that GPA did not solicit any of the
comments in support of the application, nor those expressing concern of the apparent
change in requirements for Landmark applications. The comments represent the
independent, unbiased concerns of the authors (see Attachment F).
• Many inaccurate statements are made in the peer review prepared by Jan Oshtashay of
Oshtashay & Associates and the Staff Report. These statements are listed and refuted
below:
o “…upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there
is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city…
At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was
located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made contributions to
architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere”1
The Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance does not require that the significance of
an architect relates to their work only in Santa Monica or that their office must have
been located in Santa Monica, as implied in the peer review report and by staff.
Such a requirement would eliminate designating works by any notable, master
architect not headquartered in Santa Monica. Criterion 5 states “It is a significant
or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer
1 Jan Oshtashay, “Peer Review Assessment: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark),” Memorandum to Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, October 5, 2020, 3.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 3
or architect.”2 GPA has provided sufficient evidence to support that Reisbord was
a notable architect with projects located in Santa Monica, as well as around the
world. Given the range and scope of his career, the number of widely recognized
master architects with whom he worked, and the quality of his body of work, he
should be considered notable under this criterion.
o “Interestingly, the application does not include any supporting historical
references, newspaper or magazine articles, historical photographs, or other
relevant primary and secondary sources to further support the historical narrative
and fully justify the significance finding of the property under Santa Monica
Landmark Criterion 5 (a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer, or architect).”3
At the time that the application was submitted, GPA had not found any historical
photographs to include. However, multiple supporting historical references,
including relevant primary and secondary sources, were in fact used and cited
appropriately in the application, including US Federal Census Documents, City
Directories, various newspaper articles, City of Santa Monica Building Permits, and
the AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. It is the peer review, not the
original application, that neglected to include any citations or references.
Furthermore, when adequately and professionally citing reference documents, it is
not standard professional practice to include copies of everything. The references
are the documentation. Regardless, had GPA be alerted of the change in
requirements for Landmark applications and given the opportunity to revise the
application to meet the streamlined requirements by which it was reviewed, this
additional information could have been provided prior to the Commission hearing.
o “The subject property has not been identified on the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI). Further, the property is included in the San Vicente Courtyard
Apartment Historic District as a non-contributor as it was built outside the period of
significance.”4
As stated below under the Previous Evaluation section of this report, the San
Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment prepared by
Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in 2015 identified 305 San Vicente Boulevard
and evaluated it as a potential contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard
Apartments Historic District. It was ultimately determined ineligible for lack of
character-defining features associated with the specific courtyard apartment
typology within the potential Historic District and for being constructed outside of
the period of significance. 5 However, the report also states that “…the period of
2 SMMC 9.56 Landmarks and Historic Districts, SMMC 9.56.100(A).
3 Oshtashay, 4.
4 “305 San Vicente Boulevard, 20ENT-0119,” Memorandum Prepared by the Community Development Department, City
of Santa Monica Planning Division to The Honorable Landmarks Commission, October 12, 2020, 2.
5 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402 (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, October 20, 2015), 25.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 4
significance was not extended to include these later examples, although they may
merit further study in the future.”6 The property was not eliminated from the Historic
District due to perceived total lack of potential significance. After further study
prepared by GPA and included in this report, it has been determined that 305 San
Vicente Boulevard is eligible under Criterion 1 for being individually significant for
its association with this later period of multi-family development in the San Vicente
neighborhood and under Criterion 4 as an important example of the evolution of
courtyard housing in Santa Monica (see Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation
section).
Furthermore, according to direct correspondence with the survey lead, the area
was not re-surveyed as part of the most recent survey efforts conducted by ARG
and Historic Resources Group (HRG) in 2018. Thus, 305 San Vicente was not
reconsidered for identification or eligibility in the Historic Resources Inventory
Update (2018 HRI Update). This fact was not considered in the Staff Report, Peer
Review, or by the Landmarks Commission. Note that it is entirely within the scope
of best professional practice in historic preservation not to re-survey parts of a city
that have been surveyed within the past five years and/or are already designated
as historic districts. Thus, it was totally reasonable and logical that the San Vicente
Courtyard Apartments Historic District was not re-surveyed in 2018, only three years
after the 2015 survey report.
This report responds to perceived issues raised in the peer review and Staff Report and presents
the merits on which the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is eligible for designation as a Santa
Monica Landmark.
The property is located on San Vicente Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street in the
City of Santa Monica (see Figure 2). Originally part of the Palisades tract, this neighborhood is
described as the San Vicente Corridor in the 2018 HRI Update. The property comprises one legal
parcel, identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel No. (APN) 4293-002-015 and consists of
a multi-family apartment building originally constructed in 1961. It was designed in the Mid-Century
Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord as a three-story apartment building over semi-
subterranean, ground floor parking.
Audrey von Ahrens was responsible for the preparation of this report. She fulfills the qualifications
of a historic preservation professional outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
61. Her résumé is included as Attachment A.
6 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 24-25.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 5
Figure 2: Location of property.
Methodology
In preparing this report, GPA performed the following tasks:
1. Conducted a field inspection of the property to ascertain the general condition and
physical integrity of the residence thereon. Digital photographs of the exterior of the
property were taken during this field inspection.
2. Researched the history of the property. Sources referenced included building permit
records, city directories, newspaper archives, genealogical databases (ancestry.com),
historic maps and aerial photographs, as well as the original architectural drawing set
inherited by the property owner.
3. Reviewed the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment prepared by
ARG in 2015, the 2010 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update (2010
HRI Update) prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, and the 2018 HRI Update prepared by ARG
and HRG to identify and extract the appropriate contexts for the evaluation, including the
development of the Palisades Tract, specifically the San Vicente Corridor, as well as the
Courtyard Apartment property type and Mid-Century Modern style. Additional specific
contextual information relating to the property was compiled, including a discussion on
the historic precedent of blending multi-family residential property types and the work of
Samuel Reisbord.
4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical
materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation designations, and
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 6
assessment processes and programs to evaluate the property for significance as a Santa
Monica Landmark.
5. Reviewed the City Staff Report and Oshtashay & Associates Peer Review of the original,
standard-format Landmark application completed for the initial Landmarks Commission
hearing held on October 12, 2020.
Previous Evaluations
305 San Vicente Boulevard was identified in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District
Assessment prepared by ARG in 2015. It was evaluated as a potential contributor to the San
Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District and ultimately determined ineligible for lack of
character-defining features associated with the specific courtyard apartment typology within the
potential Historic District and for being constructed outside of the period of significance.7
According to direct correspondence with the survey lead, the area was not re-surveyed as part
of the most recent survey efforts conducted by ARG and HRG in 2018. Thus, 305 San Vicente was
not reconsidered for identification or eligibility as an individual Landmark in the 2018 HRI Update.
Historic Context
The following contexts were identified as relevant for the evaluation of the property: San Vicente
Corridor (1937-1982), Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977), Courtyard Apartments,
and the Work of Samuel Reisbord. Except for the Work of Samuel Reisbord historic context, the
indented paragraphs below are excerpted from the 2018 HRI Update prepared by ARG and HRG
and adapted to make relevant connections to the subject property. The Work of Samuel Reisbord
was written specifically for this assessment report.
San Vicente Corridor (1937-1982)8
The San Vicente corridor was originally part of the Palisades Tract and comprises the north
and south sides of San Vicente Boulevard from 7th Street on the east to Ocean Avenue on
the west. The street was originally the site of many large homes built in the first three
decades of the 20th century. Early multi-family examples include an eight-unit Mission
Revival apartment building (1923, demolished) at 528 San Vicente, and a Streamline
Moderne apartment building (1937) at 212 San Vicente Boulevard. During and after World
War II when housing was scarce, some property owners began renting rooms and
effectively transformed their single-family residences into apartment houses. Still other
large homes were razed and replaced with purpose-built apartment houses. By 1954, only
10 of the early 20th century single-family residences were still standing on San Vicente
between Ocean Avenue and 7th Street.
Over time, a cluster of courtyard apartments was constructed along the corridor in various
period styles including Streamline Moderne, Mid-century Modern [such as 305 San Vicente
Boulevard], and Minimal Traditional. The configurations include variations on L-shaped, U-
7 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 25.
8 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement, (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018), 132-133.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 7
shaped, I-shaped, C-shaped and donut-shaped plans [like 305 San Vicente]. Pools are
common in the buildings constructed after 1954, [like that of 305 San Vicente Boulevard].
The buildings on San Vicente feature consistent setbacks and almost always have
landscaped front yards or forecourts. Concrete sidewalks and grassy parkways, holdovers
from the old Palisades Tract development, contribute to the luxurious feeling of the area.
Vehicular access is limited to rear alleys, another remnant feature of the early subdivision.
Original owners of these buildings ranged from individuals to development companies,
[such as Lyons Construction Company, owned by Santa Monica-based developers
Joseph A. and Leo N. Lyons who constructed 305 San Vicente Boulevard as well as 621
San Vicente Boulevard].
The majority of the garden apartments along San Vicente were constructed between 1948
and 1969. Many were architect-designed, including 614 San Vicente Boulevard (1947,
Edith Northman), [621 San Vicente Boulevard (1960, Kenneth N. Lind), and the subject
property 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961, Samuel Reisbord)]. The San Center Apartments
(1947, Carl Maston) at 229 San Vicente Boulevard were published in Progressive
Architecture, May 1950, as an exemplar of Section 608 housing.
Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977)9
…During the 1950s, economics became the driving force in multi-family residential
construction in Santa Monica. Contributing factors to the Santa Monica apartment
phenomenon included a national climate of economic incentives that encouraged the
construction of multi-family housing. In describing the “apartment boom” of the 1950s and
early 1960s, Babcock and Bosselman wrote, “In the present economic and legal climate,
incentives are available not only to the landowner, but to the developer, the investor and
the lender.”10 Between 1941 and 1950, the federal government created “Section 608”
which “provided Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of
mortgages on rental housing projects.”11 The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted
owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of a new building during the
early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s,
the federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family
housing lending among savings and loans.
These incentives had a profound effect on the pattern of urban infill development in Santa
Monica. Civic leaders encouraged these changes. The 1953 Santa Monica Community
Book states, “In many areas, old residences must be torn down to make way for hotels and
apartments, for Santa Monica cannot expand horizontally.”12 But the effects received
mixed reviews. As City Zoning Administrator Leslie S. Storrs writes,
9 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 111-113.
10 Richard F. Babcock and Fred P. Bosselman, “Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom,” University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, 111, No. 8, June 1963, 1052.
11 “Housing: The Loan Scandals,” Time, April 26, 1954.
12 Col. Carl F. White, ed. The Community Book (Santa Monica, California: A.H. Cawston, 1953), 52.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 8
Builders rushed to erect ‘608’ apartments…Unfortunately buildings designed to
conform to the requirements of this section were very much alike. Typically, they
were two stories in height, of frame and stucco construction, covered more than
72% of the total lot area and barely met the hopelessly inadequate requirements
of the then-effective zoning ordinance in the matter off-street parking.13
[The above description of “typical,” less than desirable buildings designed during this
period does not apply to 305 San Vicente Boulevard which is taller in height, includes large
off-street parking areas, and incorporates a higher level of architectural design that is more
sophisticated than it is typical.] In the 1967-68 fiscal year, the City Building Department
issued 1,388 permits for multi-family residential buildings and only 10 permits for single-family
residences.
In sum, these factors contributed to the large quantity of vernacular modern apartment
houses constructed in Santa Monica around mid-century and were contributors to the
pervasiveness of the “dingbat” or “stucco box” typology within the city. [Unlike many of
the buildings constructed during the period, the term “vernacular” does not accurately
describe the subject building at 305 San Vicente, which incorporates a much higher level
of design in the Mid-Century Modern style.] James Black and Thurman Grant, contributing
authors to Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis,
laud Santa Monica as one of only three Los Angeles area neighborhoods that offer
“Quintessential examples of the environments created by dingbats throughout Los Angles
in the 1950s and 1960s.”14 Relative to other cities with a proliferation of dingbat apartments,
Santa Monica is noted for its number of “hunchbat” or “dumbat” types that maximize their
buildable volume. The alleyways of the township plat design also provide rear-parking
access to these apartments. [Although the stucco box property type began to replace
the earlier courtyard apartment type at the end of the 1950s into the 1960s, 305 San
Vicente Boulevard is undoubtedly a courtyard in plan, but designed following the same
economic principles that led to the proliferations of the stucco box by incorporating an
ample amount of parking and filling its lot to maximize rentable space. The design of 305
San Vicente retains a large central courtyard, which, rather than landscaped open space,
is entirely built on top of the ground floor parking garage. In the absence of a central
greenspace which often incorporated concrete walkways and other hardscaping typical
of the courtyard property type, the architect designed large planters to incorporate
greenery, between which the negative spaces created define the circulation within the
otherwise open courtyard.]
Yet, the same factors also contributed to the building of many well-designed, mid-scale
modern apartment complexes in the city [the subject building at 305 San Vicente
Boulevard designed by notable architect Samuel Reisbord being one of them]. Incentives
also likely contributed to the development of several high-rise apartment buildings. Project
13 Less Storrs, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Centennial Committee, 1975), 41.
14 James Black and Thurman Grant, Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, (Los Angeles, CA: DoppelHouse Press, 2016), 143.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 9
by project, the city granted zoning variances to accommodate these large new
developments.
The surge in demand for multi-family residential development during the 1960s and 1970s
was also driven by former suburban homeowners who were now empty nesters looking for
a more leisure-oriented lifestyle and less maintenance. Many new communities were
actively marketed as “adults only.” Eschewing their picket fences and lawn mowers for
tennis courts, gyms and other recreational amenities buyers flocked to Santa Monica. The
completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension in 1966 only made the city more
desirable, as it could now effectively serve as a commuter suburb to Los Angeles…
…Multi-family residential development was so essential to the Santa Monica identity that
a political movement emerged to preserve it. During the 1970s, the Santa Monicans for
Renters’ Rights (SMRR) organization was formed to preserve affordable housing in the city
and a rent control ordinance was passed at the close of the decade.
By the early 1970s, the transformation of Santa Monica to a multi-family residential
community was complete. 80 percent of Santa Monica’s dwelling units (excluding
condominiums) were multiple-unit dwellings. Santa Monica was known to be a community
with many elderly renters. A 50-square block survey of rental units in in the city found that
80 percent of the apartment buildings had no children as residents.
In the mid-1970s, when the statewide trend toward condominium conversion reached
Santa Monica, the city responded with a moratorium on conversion projects, instead
requiring that condo developers generate new construction projects. Typically, these were
low-rise buildings, often split-level townhomes.
Courtyard Apartments15
The courtyard apartment is a multiple-family residential property that is two stores in height
and oriented around a central common area, such as a landscaped courtyard. A
courtyard apartment is significant for its association with residential development in Santa
Monica as one of the region’s dominant multiple-family residential building types.
Character-defining features include:
• Simple rectangular massing
• Two stories in height
• O-, E-, or U-shaped plan; may be composed of two L-shaped buildings
• Orientation around a common outdoor area, typically a landscaped courtyard;
may include a fountain or other feature
• Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or rear
15 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 120.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 10
Mid-Century Modern16
Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe the post-World War II iteration of the
International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was
characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior
decoration. Mid-century Modern represents the adaptation of these elements to the local
climate and topography, as well as to the postwar need for efficiently-built, moderately-
priced homes. In Southern California, this often meant the use of wood post-and-beam
construction. Mid-century Modernism is often characterized by a clear expression of
structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans.
The roots of the style can be traced to early Modernists like Richard Neutra and Rudolph
Schindler, whose local work inspired “second generation” Modern architects like Gregory
Ain, Craig Ellwood, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Pierre Koenig, Raphael Soriano, and many
more. These post-war architects developed an indigenous Modernism that was born from
the International Style but matured into a fundamentally regional style, fostered in part by
Art and Architecture magazine’s pivotal Case Study Program (1945-1966). The style gained
popularity because its use of standardized, prefabricated materials permitted quick and
economical construction. It became the predominant architectural style in the postwar
years and is represented in almost every property type, from single-family residences to
commercial buildings to gas stations.
Character-defining features include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Horizontal massing (for small-scale buildings)
• Simple geometric forms
• Expressed post-and-beam construction, in wood or steel
• Flat roof or low-pitched gable roof with wide overhanging eaves and cantilevered
canopies
• Unadorned wall surfaces
• Wood, plaster, brick or stone used as exterior wall panels or accent materials
• Flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows and sliding doors, and clerestory
windows
• Exterior staircases, decks, patios and balconies
• Little or no exterior decorative detailing
• Expressionistic/Organic subtype: sculptural forms and geometric shapes, including
butterfly, A-frame, folded plate or barrel vault roofs
The Work of Samuel Reisbord
Samuel Reisbord17 (1904-1985) was born in Kiev, Russia to Jewish parents Wolf and Bessie. They
immigrated to the United States in 1905 and resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to
16 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 366.
17 Various spellings of the last name, Reisbord, have been documented as follows: Reisboard, Relsbord, Reisburd, Reisborg, and Reisdorf.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 11
the 1910 United States Federal Census, his father was a proprietor in the iron railings industry.18 By
1920, Sam and his family, which now consisted of three sisters and brothers, resided in a home they
owned on Ludlow Street in Philadelphia.19 He attended the University of Pennsylvania and
graduated in 1929 with his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture. Upon graduating, Reisbord worked
in local Pennsylvania offices. In 1931, he married Philadelphia native and journalist, Jeanette
Markowitz.20 In 1932, Reisbord and Jeanette moved to the Soviet Union where they spent the next
seven years.21
During his time in the Soviet Union, Reisbord worked with widely recognized master architect Albert
Kahn who, at the time was consulting architect to the State Industrial Design Trust in Moscow and
designed buildings and assisted in the creation of the Moscow subway. Ordered out of the USSR
at the beginning of World War II, Riesbord, Jeanette and their two sons escaped to Japan via the
Trans-Siberian railroad and landed in Hawaii in 1940.22 Reisbord and his family resided in Honolulu
where he worked as an architect at U.S. Military bases Hickam Field and Pearl Harbor.23 From 1942
to 1943, Reisbord was he was chief architect at the firm Bechtel, Price, Callahan and worked on
the Canol Project, a sub-Arctic pipeline and refinery project for and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Alaska.24 By 1944, shortly after the bombing of
Pearl Harbor, the family moved to Los Angeles where he built his career.
Throughout his architectural career in the Los Angeles area, Reisbord worked under and
eventually alongside some of the most widely recognized architects in the area at the time. From
1944 to 1946, Reisbord was a designer for Los Angeles-based architect Paul R. Williams.25 From 1946
to 1965 he worked freelance on his own as Sam Reisbord.26 During this time, he completed his own
work and also collaborated with many well-known architects, working with each on multiple
projects. The architects with whom he collaborated include Alvin Lustig, Eisenshtat and Lipman27
and Fred Posner. In 1965, he joined forces with Jerrold M. Caris and together they formed the
architectural firm Reisbord & Caris; a partnership that lasted until 1969 when Reisbord established
his own firm, Sam Reisbord & Associates.28
18 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
19 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
20 Ancestry.com, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phstart=successSource.
21 Jeannette worked for the Moscow bureau of the New York Times and the Russian Fur Trading Board.
22 Legacy.com, “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744.
23 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
24 Online Archive of California, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa
1976 0000168, accessed March 10, 2019, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/; Samuel Reisbord
papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
25 Online Archive of California.
26 The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v., “Reisbord, Sam(uel),” accessed April 1, 2020. https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036955.
27 “Community Center Has Preview: West Side Jewish Installation to Be Dedicated April 26,” Los Angeles Tomes, April 14,
1954, A1.
28 The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036955.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 12
Reisbord was an AIA member from 1947 until his death and had a prolific career as an architect.
Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and
schools, and commercial buildings as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work
was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern courtyard and stucco box
apartments, for which he is best known.
Some of his notable projects include: the Beverly Carlton Apartments in partnership with Alvin
Lustig, now the Avalon Hotel (9400 W. Olympic Boulvard, Beverly Hills, 1948); Hollywood-Los Feliz
Jewish Community Center (1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles, 1951); Westside Jewish Community
Center in association with Eisenshtat and Lipman (5870 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1953);
16-unit Modern-style apartments at 2046 14th Street (Santa Monica, 1954)29; the Wilshire Twilighter
Hotel, now Dunes Inn30 (4300 Wilshire Boulevard, 1958); and the Plush Horse Inn Hotel (1700 S.
Pacific Coast Highway., Redondo Beach, 1960).
Other examples, specifically of his multi-family housing work include: Holt Villas (432 S. Holt Avenue,
Los Angeles, 1954)31; Jewell Gardens Apartments, now Westwood Chateau, (456 Landfair Avenue,
Los Angeles, 1955); Carlton Park Apartments (5916 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, 1956); and 823-25
Fairview Avenue Apartments in partnership with Fred Posner32 (Arcadia, 1958).
Reisbord remained in Los Angeles until his death in 1985.
Property Description
Architectural Description
Historically known as the Imperial Apartments, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a multi-family
residential building, originally constructed in 1961 and designed in the Mid-Century Modern style.33
The wood-frame building has three upper stories consisting of 36-unit residential units constructed
over semi-subterranean parking on the ground floor.34
The building fills the majority of its rectangular parcel. It is oriented toward the south, facing San
Vicente Boulevard with a shallow setback comprised of an in-ground pool on the west and
surface parking on the east (see Figure 3). The pool is protected from the street by a curved wall
made of square concrete blocks. A paved asphalt driveway provides access from San Vicente.
Adjacent the driveway entrance is a freestanding sign that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS.” In the
center of the front setback is a tree well with two large trees. The east and west property lines abut
adjacent properties. The building has a narrow setback on each side, landscaped with trees and
compacted earth. The rear (north) elevation abuts an unnamed alley.
29 2046 14th St. was identified as an “architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park,” in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement: Architectural Resources Group and Historic
Resources Group, 134.
30 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel was picked up by SurveyLA as “an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”; HistoricPlacesLA.org, “Dunes Inn,” accessed April 4, 2020, http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54; “Completion of $1 Million Hotel Set for April,” Los Angeles Times, Mar 9, 1958, G13.
31 “$150,000 Unit,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1954, E8.
32 “Near Completion,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15.
33 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Building Permit No. B29952, June 16, 1961.
34 Ibid.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 13
Figure 3: Primary (south) elevation, view looking north. GPA 2020.
Figure 4: South elevation, view looking north. GPA 2020.
The building is rectangular in plan and organized around a rectangular court. It has a flat roof
clad in rolled asphalt. On the primary (south) elevation, the eaves extend out over balconies but
are flush with the exterior wall otherwise. The extended eaves have wide fascia boards clad in
smooth stucco. The fascia boards at each balcony are connected by thinner boards, creating
an open gap between the thinner fascia boards and the exterior wall. The result is the
appearance of a light, continuous, notched band along the façade’s roofline (see Figure 4). On
the other elevations, the roof eaves overhang the exterior walls and feature simple, flat fascias.
The exterior of the building is clad in smooth stucco. The primary elevation is divided vertically into
two parts. The ground floor is asymmetrical and designed to express its function of providing both
vehicular and pedestrian access. The three upper stories are symmetrical and express their
functions as apartment units.
Figure 5: Pedestrian entrance to lobby. GPA 2020.
Figure 6: View of pool from Lobby interior. GPA
2020.
The ground floor is divided into three parts horizontally. At center is a wide, rectangular opening
for vehicular access to the semi-subterranean, ground floor parking garage. On the west end is
the primary pedestrian entrance. It is recessed beneath the upper stories and faces east,
perpendicular to the street (see Figure 5). The door is aluminum and glass. Flooring at the entrance
is terrazzo. The exterior wall to the east of the pedestrian door is clad with white and gold ceramic
tiles. The exterior wall to the west of the pedestrian door is floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum
frames (see Figure 6). Two round columns clad in small, square, white ceramic tiles with gold tiles
scattered throughout, separate the glass walls from the pool area to the south and support the
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 14
overhanging upper stories. East of the central vehicular entrance the exterior wall features tall,
narrow, rectangular openings that provide light and air into the ground floor garage.
Fenestration on the upper three floors is organized into four bays (see Figure 3). The inner two bays
have sliding aluminum windows above planter boxes adjacent to wide balconies accessed by
large sliding aluminum doors. The balconies have simple metal railings. The upper balconies shelter
the balconies below. The outer two bays consist of smaller corner balconies on each floor, also
with aluminum, sliding sash doors. The front wall plane of each balcony on the primary elevation
extends below its corresponding floor level creating a notched appearance similar to the roof
fascia.
The east elevation is asymmetrical. On the north end of the first story are three recessed metal
doors for storage/utility spaces, including a trash enclosure, and a stairwell to the upper floors. The
doors are accessible via a concrete walkway from the rear alley (see Figure 7). Fenestration on
the ground floor consists of short, fixed windows with textured wire glass protected by metal
security bars. On the upper floors there are recessed balconies within rectangular openings with
slightly projecting concrete slab floors and simple metal railings (see Figure 8). They each have
sliding aluminum doors and are flanked by a number of aluminum sliding-sash windows. Small
louvered metal vents are along the floorplates of each floor. The west elevation is similar to the
east elevation with flush window and balcony openings (see Figure 8).
Figure 7: East elevation, view looking southwest from rear alley. GPA 2020.
Figure 8: Detail of balconies on east elevation (left) and west elevation (right). GPA 2020.
The rear of the building overlooks a narrow
alley. The elevation is a simplified version of the
primary elevation. The ground floor is recessed
beneath the upper floors, supported by round
concrete columns. At the center of the first
story is a rectangular opening to the ground
floor parking. The opening has an accordion-
style metal gate. The driveway has a gradual
slope that descends into the garage, flanked
by low concrete walls. The vehicular opening is
flanked by two bays of parking on each side,
at grade with the alley, such that they overlook
the ground-floor parking within the first story of
Figure 9: Rear (north) elevation, view looking
southwest. GPA 2020.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 15
the building. This opening is partially enclosed by metal security bars on the west. The east side is
partitioned off from the garage by concrete walls.
Fenestration on the upper floors is similar to that of the primary elevation and organized into four
similar bays. The openings are almost exactly the same with the addition of a narrow opening at
the center of the second story that leads to the interior courtyard. A balcony extends the full length
of the interior two bays on the second story. Like that of the primary elevation, the interior two
bays have aluminum sliding sash windows flanked by wide, recessed balconies with sliding sash
doors. There are no built-in planters on this elevation. Within the balconies, each side wall has short
jalousie windows. The end bays consist of narrow balconies with sliding sash doors flush with the
exterior wall plane.
The apartments are all arranged around a large, dramatic interior court. The central court is
rectangular in plan with a network of exterior, elevated walkways that provide circulation across
the upper floors. The courtyard is accessed by a stairwell leading from the recessed main
entrance. The exterior walls within the courtyard are clad with a lightly textured stucco. The floor
is concrete with bands of terrazzo tile that extend the width of the courtyard, framing the paired
apartment entrances on the first level (see Figure 10). The courtyard has an open floorplan,
interrupted by large, geometric, poured in place concrete planters. Shelter is provided by
walkways that connect the apartments on the upper two floors (see Figure 11).
Figure 10: Interior courtyard, first story, view looking north. GPA 2020.
Figure 11: Interior courtyard, upper floors, view looking south). GPA 2020.
The narrow walkways extend the full length of the courtyard from south to north. These walkways
are lined with low walls clad in stucco with metal caps. Two wider walkways extend the width of
the courtyard and are flanked by floating planters that are elevated from the concrete slab floor
of the walkway by two metal poles, creating a “floating” effect. The tops of the planters have
been sealed off by metal and wood covers. On the top floor, only the wide walkways that extend
the width of the courtyard are covered by a flat roof; the narrow walkways that span the length
of the courtyard remain unsheltered. The doors to the apartment units are wood slab doors.
Fenestration within the courtyard consists of groupings of large, flush jalousie windows. Lighting
within the exterior courtyard consists of recessed can lighting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 16
Construction History
The multi-family apartment building was
originally constructed in 1961. The original
building permit lists the original owners as
Joseph Lyons, the architect as “Sam
Relsbord,” and the contractor as the owner.35
The permit indicates the wood frame and
plaster building would be three stories above
a basement garage.36 According to the
permit, the building was to include 36 units
and 40 legal parking spaces with an
additional 25 in tandem, at a value at
$456,000.37 A building permit for the
installation of a sprinkler system in the garage
was issued later in 1961.38
The in-ground “semi-public swim pool”
designed by George C. Thomson was constructed in 1962 by contractor Gordon & Le Tourneau.39
Also in 1962, the ceilings were replastered and the existing freestanding sign adjacent the
driveway entrance along San Vicente Boulevard that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” was
added.40 The illuminated sign was designed and constructed by Local Neon.41
No other building permits were filed between 1962 and 1993. In 1994, shear walls were added and
plaster cracks were repaired and repainted following the Northridge earthquake.42 In 2001, the
courtyard walkways were repaired and structural beams were replaced.43 The building was re-
roofed with mopped capsheet roll roofing in 2011 and the pool area drains were replaced in
2019.44
In addition to those documented in building permit records, it appears that some alterations
occurred to the building façade. According to a rendering of the building included in the Los
Angeles Times in 1962 (see Figure 12), the wide geometric fascia board that detaches from the
elevation was repeated across each floor. Although the fascia board remains at the parapet
level, they have been removed from the lower floors. The rendering also includes a depiction of
what appears to be either a penthouse, roof deck, or central tower. However, this feature is not
evident in historic aerial photographs and is thus assumed to be inaccurate. Although it may have
been planned, it appears that it was never constructed.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Building Permit No. B30316, August 30, 1961.
39 Building Permit No. B30967, January 22, 1962.
40 Building Permit No. B31139, August 26, 1962. Building Permit No. B31470, April 20, 1962.
41 Ibid.
42 Building Permit No. EQR0577, March 17, 1994.
43 Building Permit No. B67316, March 26, 2001.
44 Building Permit No. 11STP1553, August 5, 2011. Building Permit No. 19BLD-0223, January 22, 2019.
Figure 12: Rendering of The Imperial in newspaper
ad. Los Angeles Times, December 9, 1962, WS20.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 17
Other than removal of the plexiglas panel on the freestanding sign, which was removed in 2020
due to obvious damage, no other alterations to the building exterior were observed during GPA’s
site visit on March 31, 2020. See Attachment G for copies of building permits pertaining to exterior
work.
Ownership and Tenant History
The original property owner was Joseph A. Lyons. The Lyons family45 retained ownership of the
property throughout the majority of the building’s history until 2001. By 2011, the property was
owned by RST & Associates.46 According to a building permit from 2019, the property was owned
by Bearded Nest, LLC.47 it was purchased by the current property owner, Mid Century SV LP, in
2019.
Little information was found regarding the tenant history of the property. Few records were
available at the time of this report.48 The latest available Santa Monica City Directory is from 1960,
a year before construction of the subject building was complete. However, California Voting
Registration documents from 1962 indicate that there were at least 25 residents that year. They
include Mrs. Elizabeth Fihe, a widow who appears to have resided at the property until at least
1971; writer Joseph Gaer who lived at the property with his wife, Fay, in 1962; Lawrence C. Heiser
who resided at the property with his wife, Ruth C. while he was a student at USC; and insurance
agent Eric C. Wilson and his wife Esther, who also resided at the property in 1962. No information
beyond the names of the other tenants was found. However, residents of the property appear to
have generally been middle class and consisted of retirees, widows, and married couples. See
Attachment C for the full list of known tenants in 1962.
Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation
Per §9.56.100(A) of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (adopted in 1976
and later amended in 1987, 1991, and most recently 2015), a property merits consideration as a
Landmark if it satisfies one or more of six statutory criteria. The following discussion considers the
significance of 305 San Vicente Boulevard under each criterion.
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history.
The multi-family residence at 305 San Vicente Boulevard was constructed in 1961. The 1950s and
1960s constituted a major building boom in Santa Monica, particularly for multi-family residential
infill development. By the 1940s, Santa Monica was mostly built-out. Housing needs for the working-
class during World War II were met by subdividing existing single-family homes. However, this did
not solve the need for housing into the postwar period when demand continued to rise and
exceed supply. In response, provisions were made to allow for, and encourage, demolition of the
earlier single-family housing stock and infill with multi-family residential buildings. Combined with
45 By 1994, the property was owned by Eugenia Lyons, who retained ownership until at least 2001. Building Permit No. EQR0577, March 17, 1994 and B67316, March 26, 2001.
46 Building Permit No. 11STP1553, August 5, 2011.
47 Building Permit No. 19BLD-0223, January 22, 2019.
48 Due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, research was largely limited to sources available online. Repositories, such as public libraries, and city and country records offices, were not accessible to the public during time this report was written.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 18
larger economic incentives at the federal level and support by local City officials, the built
landscape of Santa Monica transformed as a huge number of multi-family buildings were
approved through zoning variances. This transition in development occurred along San Vicente
Boulevard beginning in the late 1940s with almost all single-family residences west of 7th Street
replaced with multi-family residences by the end of the 1970s. This transition, which occurred over
a drawn-out period, spanning four decades, consisted of two distinct trends in multi-family housing
development that have often been grouped into one. The first is 1940s and 1950s multi-family
family infill development of courtyard apartment housing types, and the second is 1960s and 1970s
multi-family infill development of stucco box and larger apartment housing types, often replacing
those constructed in the two decades prior.
Most of the buildings along the adjacent blocks of San Vicente Boulevard were constructed
during the earlier part of this trend, in the 1940s and 1950s. They are variations of the courtyard
apartment property type, popular from the late 1930s to the late 1950s, 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. These were constructed prior to the new zoning ordinance
in 1959 when the City permitted the construction of “skyscraper apartments on large parcels of
land,” and “garden-type apartments” on smaller parcels in the Palisades Tract.49 Prior to this
zoning change, through the 1950s, a contentious battle ensued between homeowners who
opposed multi-family residential development in their neighborhoods, and developers who
looked to profit from higher density construction.50 The courtyard housing type, rooted in the
bungalow court multi-family housing type from the 1920s, was more amenable to infill
development just like its predecessor.
The second phase of multi-family infill development began in the 1960s:
With the late 1960s and 1970s came a shift away from the courtyard apartment as a
popular multifamily 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.51
Unlike those of the 1940s and 1950s, these infill apartment buildings were unapologetic in size and
scale. They were designed to fill their lot to maximize rents and accommodate parking.
305 San Vicente Boulevard is an interesting architectural specimen, having been constructed in
the midst of this transition from courtyard apartments to the economic-driven stucco box. Many
of the archetypal courtyard buildings that were constructed during the first phase of multi-housing
development along San Vicente are now part of the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic
District. Although the subject property is located within the District boundaries, it was not included
as a contributor due to its 1961 construction date being outside of the determined period of
49 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 15.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.,17.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 19
significance for the District, which was determined to be 1936 to 1956, as explained in the following
excerpt from the 2015 San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment Report,
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 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.52
While it is true that 305 San Vicente does not embody the archetypical mid-20th century courtyard
apartment property type, and therefore would not meet the eligibility requirements determined
for evaluating contributors to the District, it is individually significant for its association with the
ongoing multi-family residential development trend along the San Vicente corridor and in the City
of Santa Monica. In 1956, the property was one of few remaining single-family residential
properties that had been converted to multi-family with apartments constructed on the rear (see
Figure 13). The replacement of these buildings with the subject late courtyard apartment in 1961
continued the transformation of San Vicente Boulevard into the 1960s and contributes to the
uninterrupted front setback that characterizes the courtyard apartment buildings that now
dominated the street.
Figure 13: 1956 historic aerial, showing subject
property outlined in yellow. UCSB.
Figure 14: 1962 historic aerial, showing subject
building outlined in yellow. UCSB.
52 Ibid., 24-25.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 20
While it was determined not to fit into the definition of a mid-1920s courtyard apartment and
ineligible as a contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, it also does not
fit into the category described in the quote above about the later multi-family properties that
eliminated the shared courtyard in favor of small, interior light wells. Rather, the subject building is
a late, unique example of the courtyard apartment development trend and is significant as an
example of a transitional property type constructed on the heels of a change in the City’s zoning
ordinance in 1959, when zoning began to resemble what it is today. After which, multi-family
development was dominated by vernacular modern stucco box apartment buildings, including
dingbats.
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is an important component of multi-family residential
environment in Santa Monica that adds to the historic narrative of its neighborhood. It also
symbolizes the larger citywide trend of increased density achieved through zoning changes. It is
therefore eligible under Criterion 1 for exemplifying an important aspect of this period in the
neighborhood’s architectural history.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The residence at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a 1960s courtyard apartment building which
features a uniquely designed interior courtyard. The large central courtyard, rather than
landscaped open space, is entirely built on top of the ground floor parking garage. The design
allows for the incorporation of an ample amount of parking at the ground level but ample light
and communal space around which the apartments are oriented on the upper floors.
In the absence of a central greenspace which
often incorporated concrete walkways and
other hardscaping typical of the 1920s-1950s
courtyard property type, the architect
designed large, trapezoidal planters made of
board-formed concrete to incorporate
greenery; between which the negative spaces
define the circulation within the otherwise
open courtyard.
The design of the courtyard combines sharp,
geometric forms and simple details that when
viewed together create a surprisingly
intricately designed space and interesting
composition of solid and void. The courtyard has elevated walkways that are aesthetically
designed to achieve a specific function. They are strategically arranged to provide efficient
circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, but also create aesthetic
interest with the intersecting volumes and planes of the long, elevated walkways appearing to
float across the upper floors of the courtyard. No other example of this courtyard design in multi-
family housing from the period was found through researching properties in Santa Monica, or the
Los Angeles area as a whole.
Figure 15: Courtyard, first floor (left) and upper floors (right). Owners personal photographs.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 21
Figure 16: Courtyard, upper floor walkway. Glenn Darby, resident, 2020.
Figure 17: Courtyard, upper floor walkways. GPA 2020.
As such, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, with its unique and dynamic interior courtyard
design, has aesthetic interest and value and is significant under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or
national history.
The building at 305 San Vicente Street was designed to attract the upper middle class, as was
typical of the property type and other apartment buildings in the area. Little information was found
regarding the names of residents of the property over time. Due to this lack of information, the
property does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 3 based on its tenant history.
The long-time owner of the property was Joseph A. Lyons and Lyons Construction Company,
owned by himself and his brother, Leo. The brothers were born in 1908 and 1911 in Orosi, California
to parents Sultana (1881-1976), a Turkish immigrant,53 and Krakor Arslanian, an Armenian
immigrant. 54 The family owned a fruit farm in Orosi, California where they resided until at least
1920.55
After the death of Krakor, the brothers, their widowed mother, and sister, Katherine Arslanian-
Bosnian, moved to Los Angeles by 1927. Joseph attended Los Angeles High School, where he was
a member of the Boys’ House and Grounds Committee.56 The family resided at 2319 Ridgley Drive.
By 1930, they moved to a house at 2323 Ridgley Drive during which time Joseph, the oldest son,
was employed as an auto mechanic at a garage. 57 Research indicates that the Arslanian
brothers changed their name in the 1930s. According to the 1934 California Register of Voters, Leo
was the first to adopt the name Lyons, while Joseph and their mother were registered under the
53 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020,
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7884/images/31111_4327313-01438.
54 The name Arslanian, is also written in some sources as “Urslanian.”
55 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6061/images/4294423-00077.
56 Ancestry.com, "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012"; School Name: Los Angeles High School, accessed November 7,
2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1265/images/ybk_blueandw0036.
57 Ancestry.com, 1930 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6224/images/4532469_00207.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 22
name Arslanian.58 By 1938, both brothers had adopted the name Lyons, by which time they
owned and operated their own automobile repair shop. Lyons Brothers was located at 975 Venice
Boulevard.59 According to the 1938 Los Angeles City Directory, Leo lived at 2323 ½ Ridgley Avenue
with his wife, Florence.60 They were divorced by 1940, during which time the Lyons brothers shared
the home with their widowed mother.61
Joseph enlisted in the Army in 1943. By 1962, Joseph married Jeanne Lyons.62 They had one
daughter, Linda Lyons.63 The couple were members of Artisans Auxiliary of the Assistance League
of Southern California with Jeanne as President.6465
No evidence indicating exactly when the brothers started their construction company was found.
However, one of their first projects appears to have been a seven-unit apartment building at 1357
Beverly Glen Boulevard in Los Angeles, constructed in 1953 “by and for Lyons Construction Co.”66
The two-story apartment building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect
Sanford Kent.67 In 1959-1960, they constructed 621 San Vicente Boulevard, also along the San
Vicente Corridor, east of the subject property. It was also designed in the Mid-Century Modern
style but by master architect Kenneth Nels Lind. In 1961, the company constructed the subject
building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. In 1962, a 32-unit elevator apartment building at 13535
Victory Boulevard in Van Nuys was constructed by Lyons Construction Co. and designed by
Vincent R. Bonfanti, AIA.68
While Joseph A. Lyons and Leo N. Lyons appear to have had a successful career as developers
investing in property throughout Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and the San Fernando Valley, there
is no evidence to suggest that either brother were significant figures in history, nor that they were
particularly influential in the history of multi-family residential development. Rather, their
investment in properties as a small investment and development firm was merely part of an
ongoing trend in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to
be significant under Criterion 3 for association with the original developers and long-term owners,
Joseph A. Lyons or the Lyons Construction Company.
Research also did not reveal any evidence of association with a historic event. Therefore, 305 San
Vicente Boulevard does not appear to be significant under Criterion 3.
58 Ancestry.com, California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61066/images/losangelesco0473.
59 Los Angeles City Directory, 1938.
60 Ibid.
61 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020,
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2442/images/m-t0627-00411-00184.
62 Christy Fox, “What's in Name? Patents and Compounded Goofs” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1960, I6.
63 “Ticktocker Tea Slated Saturday,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 1965, ws11.
64 “Preview of Art Will Be Seen In Bay City”, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1962, I10.
65 “League Artisans Slate Costume Ball,” Los Angeles Times, April 13, 1960, A7.
66 “New Apartment Building Readied,” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 1953, E10.
67 Ibid.
68 “Construction Date on New Apartments,” Los Angeles Times, November 4, 1962, M23.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 23
Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing 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.
305 San Vicente Boulevard embodies the distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern
style and is a unique and excellent example of the style as applied to the late courtyard
apartment property type.
Courtyard apartments initially evolved from the bungalow court and reached the height of their
development in the 1920s. The earliest forms were one or two buildings, typically two stories in
height, oriented around a central common area.69 By the 1920s, a number of architects and
builders who specialized in the building type defined the typical form and character of courtyard
apartment complexes as explained by Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice,
authors of Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles:
“The ideal image of the suburban landscape (coupled with early building regulations
safeguarding against earthquakes) kept the courts to a two-story limit. Within these limits,
courts had no need to advance or radically depart from common building technologies
of the period from 1910 to 1930.”70
As a result, significant departures from the original building type were not seen until later decades,
when increased density requirements forced the intensification of building within the court
envelope.71
The Courtyard Apartments context included in the 2018 HRI Update lists character-defining
features of the property type that are specific to the most prolific period of development in the
1920s, as described above (see Historic Context section, Courtyard Apartments on page 10).
However, the typology of the courtyard apartment experienced various iterations over the
decades in which it proliferated, from the 1910s to the end of the 1960s. As such, the character-
defining features identified in the 2018 HRI Update do not fully capture those of the building at 305
San Vicente Boulevard, which was constructed toward the later end of the property type’s period
of development. In absence of the specific context relating to later courtyard apartments in the
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement, the following is an excerpt from the Los
Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement (LACHCS): 72
…In the postwar period, land values typically dictated higher densities, with buildings
sometimes reaching three stories in height [like 305 San Vicente] instead of just two, and
frequently developed on two or more residential lots. Buildings still exhibited the typical O,
U, or E-shaped plans – or paired L-shaped plans – oriented around a central common
69 Historic Resources Group, “Residential Development and Suburbanization, Multi-Family Residential Development, Courtyard Apartments, 1910-1969,” Los Angeles Citywide Context Statement (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources: December 2018), 54.
70 Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, James Tice, and Julius Shulman, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A
Typological Analysis (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), 100.
71 Historic Resources Group, 55.
72 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Historic Resources Group, 58-59.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 24
space. However, these spaces now frequently featured concrete patios and swimming
pools.
While the better examples of these postwar courtyard complexes employed architects,
such as Edward Fickett [and Samuel Reisbord, architect of 305 San Vicente], most were
builder designed. Buildings typically displayed modest interpretations of popular styles at
the time, including most commonly Mid-Century Modern and the Traditional/California
Ranch style. However, some builders embraced more exotic or fanciful motifs in an effort
to persuade prospective renters away for its more prosaic neighbors” (Merry Ovnick, Los
Angeles: The End of the Rainbow, 284)…
…Examples of 1950s and 1960s courtyard apartments can be found throughout the areas
of Los Angeles [and Santa Monica] that were built up during the postwar period…[and like
305 San Vicente,]…tend to be concentrated along automobile corridors and adjacent to
freeways.
Courtyard apartments began to taper out by the 1960s due to development pressures and new
zoning ordinances that allowed for the proliferations of higher density multi-family developments.
The LACHCS also includes a list of character-defining features of the 1950s-1960s Courtyard
Apartment73, listed below:
• O-, U- or E-shaped plan on a double residential lot; may be composed of two L-shaped
buildings
• May have interior or exterior access corridors
• Building is oriented around a common area, a primary feature of the design (typically a
landscaped courtyard, paved patio or swimming pool)
• Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or rear
• May also be significant as a good example of an architectural style from its period and/or
the work of a significant architect of building
• Associated architectural styles may include, and not be limited to: Mid-Century Modern,
California Ranch, Tiki/Polynesian
305 San Vicente Boulevard incorporates all of the above character-defining features of the 1950s-
1960s Courtyard Apartment property type.
As stated earlier, although the stucco box property type began to replace the earlier courtyard
apartment type at the end of the 1950s into the 1960s, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is undoubtedly
a courtyard in plan, but designed following the same economic principles that lead to the
proliferation of the stucco box. In doing so, the subject property incorporates an ample amount
of parking and fills its lot to maximize rentable space but also retains ample light and communal
space around which the apartments are oriented. The integration of these principles is elegantly
exemplified in the resulting design of 305 San Vicente Boulevard. The building retains a large
central courtyard, which, rather than landscaped open space, is entirely built on top of the
ground floor parking garage. In the absence of a central greenspace which often incorporated
concrete walkways and other hardscaping typical of the 1920s-1950s courtyard property type,
73 Ibid., 67.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 25
the architect designed large planters to incorporate greenery; between which the negative
spaces created define the circulation within the otherwise open courtyard. The stacked, open,
elevated walkways provide a modern, higher density interpretation of the concrete walkways
typical of earlier, one- and two-story courtyard apartments. To accommodate the ground floor
parking garage and maximize the space of the central courtyard, the pool is located within the
front setback, a location more typical of the stucco box.
Few properties were identified as examples of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the
1950s-1960s courtyard property type. Properties identified as appearing eligible as Landmarks
include 827 6th Street (1941/1951); 822 Cedar Street (1952); 1621 Centinela Avenue (1953); 633
Ocean Avenue (1953); 130 Alta Avenue (1955); and 2700 Neilson Way (1965). 2238 28th Street
(1950) was also identified but determined not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible as a
Landmark.
Of the few 1950s-1960s courtyard apartments included in the 2018 HRI Update, none are like 305
San Vicente Boulevard in terms of type or style. They are primarily examples of U- and E-shaped
courtyard apartments, one to two stories in height. Thus, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a unique
and excellent example of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern O-shaped courtyard apartment in Santa
Monica and an important variation of the historical type which adapted to rising development
pressure and new allowances made through zoning changes and therefore valuable to the study
of architecture.
305 San Vicente exhibits many of the character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern style
in its horizontal massing, asymmetrical façade, flat roof, concrete and terrazzo flooring, flush-
mounted metal framed windows, mixed exterior materials including stucco, concrete and
ceramic tiles and expanses of unadorned wall surfaces. The building also features many
geometric details such as the curved property walls and pool, round columns juxtaposed with
square ceramic tile cladding, and rhythmic geometric fascia and balconies that create depth to
the otherwise flat façade. The geometric forms are also utilized in the central courtyard where
trapezoidal planters break up the rectangular space of the first floor beneath long, elevated
rectangular walkways that are accented with floating planters atop round posts where the
deliberate expression of construction is evident.
For all of the reasons above, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is eligible under Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer, or architect.
305 San Vicente Boulevard is a highly intact and significant example of the work of notable
architect Samuel Reisbord. He practiced until at least 1969 and it was constructed toward the
middle part of Reisbord’s lengthy and prolific career. The building is also one of only two known
apartment buildings of his extant in Santa Monica. The other, 2046 14th Street, is from the first half
of the 1950s and quite different in both scale and aesthetics. It represents a different period of the
architect’s work.
Samuel Reisbord had a fascinating and somewhat tumultuous life that ultimately brought him to
Southern California where he chose to lay down roots and begin what can only be described as
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 26
a prolific and accomplished career. His work was directly influenced and constantly intertwined
with the careers of some of the most well-known and leading modern architects of the period.
His association and partnerships with Albert Kahn, Paul Williams, Alvin Lustig, Sidney Eisenshtat, and
Fred Posner speak volumes of his talent, though his work stands alone. Reisbord’s many projects
included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial
buildings as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment
buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern courtyard and stucco box apartments, for which he is
best known.
Samuel Reisbord’s historical career as an architect has been overlooked in recent years. His work
has been overshadowed by those that he worked alongside; whose names are more well-known.
However, it is worth noting that in many of these collaborative projects, his name was listed first
(see Attachment E). Moreover, other examples of his work have been recognized as historical
resources (see Figure 18 - Figure 21). 2046 14th Street, Santa Monica (1954) is a 16-unit Modern-style
apartment constructed for Irma C. Hall and was identified in the 2018 HRI update as an
“Architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park.”74 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel,
now Dunes Inn, at 4300 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (1958) was identified by SurveyLA as an
“excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”75 The
Westside Jewish Community Center at 5870 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles (1953) was
designed by Resibord in collaboration with notable local firm Eisenshtat and Lipman and identified
by SurveyLA as an “excellent example of Mid-Century Modern institutional architecture in the
Wilshire area.”76
The Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center, now the Silverlake Independent Jewish
Community Center (SIJCC), at 1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles (1951), was also identified by
SurveyLA for representing the post-war growth of the Jewish community after World War II as
veterans and others moved West with their families and institutions such as JCCs were constructed
in response to provide social and recreational activities to people of all ages.77 Although not
identified for its architectural merit, the building is one of at least two major JCCs that Reisbord is
known to have designed (the other being the aforementioned Westside Jewish Community
Center, in collaboration with Eisenshtat and Lipman). Having fled Germany at the onset of WWII,
it is not surprising that Reisbord was an active member of the Jewish community in the Los Angeles
region.
74 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 134.
75 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., “Historic Resources Survey Report: Wilshire Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources” (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, January 23, 2015), 219.
76 Ibid., 168.
77 “The Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center represents the post-war growth of the community after World War II
as veterans and others moved West with their families. By 1948, the Jewish population of Los Angeles was a quarter of a
million. Institutions such as JCCs were constructed in response and provided social and recreational activities to people of all ages.” GPA Consulting, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources” (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, May 2014), 5.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 27
Figure 18: 2046 14th St., Santa Monica (1953).
Google.
Figure 19: 4300 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles (1958). SurveyLA.
Figure 20: 1110 Bates Ave., Los Angeles (1951).
Google.
Figure 21: 5870 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles
(1953). Google.
As further evidence of his noteworthy status, Reisbord has been named in a number of scholarly
publications for his multi-family residential designs during the period, such as by noted
architectural critic and historian John Chase.78 Furthermore, Reisbord’s papers are archived as
part of the renowned Architecture and Design Collection at the University of California, Santa
Barbara.79 An exhibition of his work was shown at the University Art Museum in 2003 and
“showcased a selection of his low scale commercial and residential designs including apartments,
hotels, and motels that helped to transform the face of everyday life in Los Angeles following World
War II.”80
His body of work, relationship and numerous collaborations with esteemed architects, and
recognition of his work in scholarly publications and historical resource surveys as significant
78 John Chase, Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving: Reflections on Building Production in the Vernacular City (New York, NY: Verso, 2000), 5.
79 Online Archive of California.
80 Nancy Dustin Wall Moure, Historical Collections Council Newsletters January 1999-May 2006 and Miscellaneous Articles,
(Laguna Beach, CA: Dustin Publications, 2006), Google Books e-Book, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Collections_Council_Newslette/p41IAQAAIAAJ?hl=en. Emphasis added.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 28
examples of the Mid-Century Modern style demonstrate that Samuel Reisbord is indeed a notable
architect in history.
305 San Vicente Boulevard is a particularly excellent extant example of the work of Reisbord. His
best buildings often featured simple massings with bold, geometric forms that create energetic
compositions which incorporate expanses of glass juxtaposed with unadorned wall planes that
emit a feeling of both lightness and heaviness. In 305 San Vicente, this quality is achieved through
his use of geometric balconies, a partially detached fascia, and the elevated walkways with
floating planters.
305 San Vicente Boulevard exemplifies Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied
to the late courtyard apartment property type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms
create a dynamic composition on both the exterior façade and interior courtyard. The courtyard
in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining strong geometric forms and simple details that
when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting
composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide
efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an
elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes.
Furthermore, many similar examples of Reisbord’s work from the late 1950s have been demolished
over time, particularly those apartments and commercial buildings located in the Hollywood area
of Los Angeles. They include Mark-Stephens office building at 8467 Beverly Boulevard (1956) [see
Figure 22]; 1767 N. Orchard Avenue (1958, Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner) [see Figure 23]; and
8833 Sunset Boulevard (1958) [see Figure 24]. As a result, properties reflecting the late 1950s/early
1960s period of his work in the Los Angeles region are becoming increasingly rare.
Figure 22: 8467 Beverly Blvd. (demolished). LA Times.
Figure 23: 1767 N. Orchard Ave., Los Angeles (demolished). LA Times.
Figure 24: 8833 Sunset Blvd. (demolished). LA Times.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 29
For all of the reasons outlined above, Samuel Reisbord is a notable architect and 305 San Vicente
Boulevard is an increasingly rare and excellent example of his work on multi-family, Mid-Century
Modern buildings in the early 1960s. It is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under
Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular visual characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The property is located on San Vicente Boulevard and is surrounded by buildings of similar scale,
including many designed in Mid-Century Modern styles as applied to the courtyard apartment
property type. As such, the location of the subject property is not in itself unique. While
architecturally significant, the building does not have a visual characteristic that is singular within
the City. The interior courtyard, while aesthetically unique, is most certainly part of the overall
composition of the building and property and is best understood under Criterion 2. Lastly, the
subject property is not a familiar visual feature of the City. Therefore, 305 San Vicente Boulevard
does not appear to be significant under Criterion 6.
Significance Summary
305 San Vicente Drive appears to be significant under Santa Monica Landmark Criteria 1, 2, 4 and
5. The property’s period of significance is 1961, the year of construction.
Integrity Analysis
It is standard practice to assess a property’s integrity as part of a historic evaluation. Integrity is a
property’s ability to convey its historic significance through its physical features. National Register
Bulletin #15 defines seven aspects of integrity: Location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association. In order to convey significance, a property must retain some
combination of these aspects of integrity from its period of significance. The aspects of integrity
that are essential vary depending on the significance of the resource.
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
The property retains integrity of location as there is no evidence to suggest the property has been
moved since it was constructed in 1961.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style
of the property.
The property retains integrity of design. Existing characteristics of the building, including its simple
geometric forms with horizontal massing, rectangular plan with central courtyard and long,
elevated walkways, flat roof and exterior pool with round, patterned concrete block wall, semi-
subterranean ground-floor parking, unadorned wall surfaces, flush-mounted metal frame fixed
windows, exterior balconies, and extensive use of smooth concrete and stucco reflect its original
aesthetic, style, and function. Some elements of the original façade design, specifically the
repeated geometric bands on the lower levels that were identical to the wide geometric fascia
board that detaches from the elevation at the parapet level, have been removed. However,
because the fascia remains in full at the top and in part at lower levels, the integrity of design
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 30
remains evident and although diminished, it could be restored based on physical evidence, rather
than speculation. Sufficient integrity of design remains to convey the building’s significance under
Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.
The integrity of setting is intact. Surrounding buildings are multi-family infill development dating
from the 1940s through 1970s and are generally the same as when the building was initially
constructed.
Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period
of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The property retains integrity of materials. The key exterior materials are present, including metal
windows, stucco and smooth concrete exterior, patterned concrete block wall, terrazzo and
concrete flooring, board-formed concrete planters, wood slab apartment unit doors, and white
and gold ceramic tiles.
Workmanship: The physical evidence or the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
The property retains integrity of workmanship which is conveyed through its concrete, masonry,
and stucco construction, along with the stylistic details of the attached and detached geometric
concrete fascia, original round columns with gold and white ceramic tiles, concrete and terrazzo
flooring, elevated skywalks with floating planters, and trapezoidal board-formed concrete
planters.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of
time.
The property retains integrity of feeling, as the combination of its intact location, design, setting,
materials, and workmanship evoke the sense of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern multi-family
residence.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.
The integrity of association is intact, as the property retains sufficient physical integrity to convey
its significance under Criterion 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Integrity Summary
The building is remarkably intact. The only major alteration to the physical design is the removal of
geometric bands on the façade. However, the original fascia remains intact and portions of the
same feature are extant on the lower levels, which together are sufficient evidence to convey the
original design. Other minor alterations pertaining to the maintenance and preservation of the
building include re-roofing and replacement of structural beams within the elevated walkways of
the courtyard, presumably necessitated by earthquake damage.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 31
Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the architectural components that contribute to a building’s
sense of time and place. Character-defining features can generally be grouped into three
categories: the overall visual character of a building, the exterior materials and craftsmanship,
and the interior spaces, features, and finishes. The relative importance of character-defining
features depends on the level of craftsmanship, visibility, and integrity. In addition, some
character-defining features are more important than others in conveying the significance of the
building. The character-defining features identified below are considered the most important
elements contributing to the significance of the property, and generally include features that date
from the period of significance, directly relate to the original use, type, and style, display
craftsmanship, are highly visible, and retain integrity.
The list of character-defining features for 305 San Vicente Boulevard are restricted to the exterior
only, as the City’s ordinance does not include the interiors of private residences.
Overall Visual Character
• Three-story height
• Simple boxy massing with minimal ornamentation
• Rectangular plan
• Flat roof
• Expanses of uninterrupted wall planes
• Extended eaves and fascia on primary elevation
• Symmetrical fenestration pattern of upper stories on primary elevation
• Flush window and balcony openings
• Asymmetrical ground floor on primary elevation
• Pedestrian entrance on primary elevation
• Wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage
• Tall, narrow openings at ground floor of the garage
• Expanse of floor-to-ceiling glass enclosing entrance lobby
• Round columns
• Swimming pool enclosed by curved concrete wall
• Mid-Century Modern “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” freestanding sign frame
• Central court and network of exterior, elevated walkways
• Geometric planter boxes in central court
Exterior Materials and Craftsmanship
• Smooth stucco exterior finish
• Aluminum frame windows and doors
• Balconies with planes extended below the corresponding floor on the primary elevation
• White and gold ceramic tile wall cladding within pedestrian entrance and lobby on
primary elevation
• White and gold ceramic tile clad round columns
• Floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames at lobby
• Concrete wall made of square concrete blocks enclosing swimming pool
• Wood slab apartment unit doors
• Jalousie windows
• Floating planters along walkways in central courtyard
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 32
• Board-formed concrete planters in central courtyard
• Concrete and Terrazzo floors
Conclusions
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is significant as an example of Mid-Century Modern
architecture as applied to the late courtyard apartment type in the San Vicente Corridor
neighborhood and represents multi-family housing development trends in Santa Monica as a
whole. It is also significant for the possession of aesthetic values conveyed through the unique and
dynamic central courtyard design that has not been seen elsewhere in Santa Monica from the
period. Furthermore, it is significant for representing the evolution of the courtyard apartment
property type and as an excellent example of a 1960s courtyard apartment, as well as an
increasingly rare and excellent example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord. It
retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and
therefore has sufficient physical integrity to convey its historical significance. As such, the building
appears to be eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 33
Sources
Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed November 7, 2020.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6061/images/4294423-00077.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census. Accessed November 7, 2020.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6224/images/4532469_00207.
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
Ancestry.com. California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968. Accessed November 7, 2020.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61066/images/losangelesco0473.
Ancestry.com. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018. Accessed
online March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phs
tart=successSource.
Ancestry.com. "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012; School Name: Los Angeles High School.”
Accessed November 7, 2020.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1265/images/ybk_blueandw0036.
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide
Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report. Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Wilshire Community Plan
Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources.” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources,
January 23, 2015.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District
Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning
& Community Development Department, October 20, 2015.
Babcock, Richard F. and Fred P. Bosselman. “Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom.”
University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 111, No. 8. June 1963.
Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. New York: Penguin Books,
1971.
Black, James and Thurman Grant. Editors. Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as
Projection of a Metropolis. Los Angeles, CA: DoppelHouse Press, 2016.
City of Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. Various sections as cited.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 34
Chase, John. Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving: Reflections on Building Production in the
Vernacular City. New York: Verso, 2000.
City Directory. Los Angeles, California. Various Dates.
City of Santa Monica Building Department. Building Permits. Various Dates.
GPA Consulting, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley
Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources.” City of Los Angeles Office of
Historic Resources, May 2014.
HistoricPlacesLA.org. “Dunes Inn.” Accessed April 4, 2020.
http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54.
Historic Resources Group. “Residential Development and Suburbanization, Multi-Family
Residential Development, Courtyard Apartments, 1910-1969.” Los Angeles Citywide
Context Statement. City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources: December 2018.
“Housing: The Loan Scandals.” Time. April 26, 1954.
Legacy.com. “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord.” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001. Accessed
online March 30, 2020.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-
reisbord&pid=92744.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Sam Reisbord and Associates” Accessed March 10, 2020.
https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/sam-reisbord-and-associates.
Los Angeles Times. Various Dates.
Moure, Nancy Dustin Wall. Historical Collections Council Newsletters January 1999-May 2006 and
Miscellaneous Articles. Laguna Beach, CA: Dustin Publications, 2006. Google Books e-
Book.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Collections_Council_Newslette/p41IA
QAAIAAJ?hl=en.
Online Archive of California. “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord
papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168. Accessed March 10, 2019.
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/
“Samuel Reisbord Papers.” Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture
Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
Oshtashay, Jan. “PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation
Application (Landmark).” Memorandum to Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica.
October 5, 2020.
Ovnick, Merry. Los Angeles: The End of the Rainbow. Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 1994.
Polyzoides, Stephanos and Roger Sherwood, James Tice, and Julius Shulman. Courtyard Housing
in Los Angeles: A Typological Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 35
Storrs, Less. Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Centennial
Committee, 1975).
Street Address Directories, Los Angeles. Various Dates.
The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v. “Reisbord, Samuel.” Accessed April 1,
2020.
https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036
955.
White, Col. Carl F. Editor. The Community Book. Santa Monica, CA: A.H. Cawston. 1953.
Attachments
Attachment A: Résumé
Attachment B: Current Photographs
Attachment C: Tenant History
Attachment D: Sanborn Maps
Attachment E: Example Work of Samuel Reisbord
Attachment F: Building Permits
Attachment G: Public Comments
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A – RÉSUMÉ
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A
AUDREY VON AHRENS
Audrey von Ahrens is an Architectural Historian II at GPA. She has been
involved in the field of historic preservation since 2013. Audrey
graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a Master of Science
in Historic Preservation and City Planning where she focused on
preservation planning and community economic development. She
has since worked in private historic preservation consulting in
California. Audrey joined GPA in 2017 and her experience has included
the preparation of environmental compliance documents in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; historic context
statements; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards analysis; large-scale
historic resources surveys; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide
variety of projects and property types throughout Southern California.
Audrey is also experienced in coordinating with property owners and
local governments in the preparation and review of Mills Act Property
Contract applications and the inspection and reporting of properties
applying for or with existing contracts.
Educational Background: Selected Projects:
• M.S., Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 2016
• Master of City Planning, University of
Pennsylvania, 2016
• B.A., Architectural Studies, University of
Pittsburgh, 2013
• B.A., Urban Studies, University of Pittsburgh,
2013
▪ 91/605, Los Angeles County, Section 106 Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2017 ▪ 328 N. Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, CEQA Historical
Resource Evaluation Report, 2019
▪ 933 S. Gramercy Place, Los Angeles, CEQA Phase 1
Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020
▪ 1360 Vine Street, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2020
▪ 1400 Vine Street, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2020
▪ 2550 Peralta Boulevard, Fremont, CEQA Preliminary
Historical Resource Evaluation Memorandum, 2018
▪ 4080 Lafayette Place, Culver City, CEQA Historical
Resource Evaluation Report, 2019
▪ 4900-20 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Los Angeles, Phase 1 Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020 ▪ 11343-45 W. Ventura Boulevard, Los Angeles, CEQA Phase 1 Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020 ▪ CF Braun & Company Plant, Alhambra, CEQA Historical Resource Technical Report, 2019 ▪ Golden Avenue Bridge Replacement, Section 106 Historical Resources Evaluation Report, 2017 ▪ High Speed Rail, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section, CEQA/NEPA Historical Resource Technical Report, 2017-2018 ▪ Nakase Brothers Wholesale Nursery, Lake Forest, CEQA Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2019 ▪ Sunset & Western, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical Resource Technical Report, 2017
▪ Vermont Corridor, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2017
▪ Westlake 619, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical Resource
Technical Report, 2018
Professional Experience:
• GPA Consulting, Architectural Historian II, 2017-Present
• Heritage Consulting, Inc., Intern, 2015-2016
• Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, Intern, 2013
• City of Pittsburgh Planning Department, Intern, 2012
Qualifications:
• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for history and architectural history pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A.
• National Preservation Institute, Section 106: An Introduction
Professional Activities:
• Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood
Council Planning and Land Use
Committee, Public Seat, 2018-Present
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
ATTACHMENT B – CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 1: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Photo 2: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 3: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Photo 4: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 5: Imperial Apartments, north elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 6: Imperial Apartments, west elevation. View looking southeast.
March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 7: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, first floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 8: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, first floor. View looking north.
March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 9: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, upper floors. View looking south. March 2020. GPA
Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B
Photo 10: Imperial Apartments, sign detail, front yard. View looking east. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C
ATTACHMENT C – TENANT HISTORY AND NEWSPAPER ADS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C
1962 Newspaper Ads. Los Angeles Times, various dates.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C
1962 California Voter Registration. Ancestry.com.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D
ATTACHMENT D – SANBORN MAPS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D
1950 Sanborn Map, showing subject property outlined in red. LAPL.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
ATTACHMENT E – EXAMPLE WORK OF SAMUEL REISBORD
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
The Beverly-Landau Apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord and Alvin Lustig. Los Angeles Times, January
23, 1949, E1.
The Barbara-Terry apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, January 27, 1954, E4.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
305 S. Rexford Drive apartment building designed by Samuel Resibord. Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1954,
E4.
Riverside Medical Building designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1955, E11.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
Mark-Stephens office building designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1956, F12.
Apartment Building Project designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner & Associated. Los Angeles Times,
December 15, 1957, F9.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
Orchid Apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner Associates. Los Angeles Times, August
24, 1958, F8.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
8833 Sunset Boulevard designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, May 11, 1958, F1.
823-25 Fairview Avenue designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner. Los Angeles Times, November 9,
1958, F15.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment F
ATTACHMENT F – PUBLIC COMMENTS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
From:glenn darby
To:Planning Commission Comments
Subject:YES to Landmark for 305 San Vicente Blvd.--please!
Date:Saturday, October 10, 2020 4:02:42 PM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
First, I hope you are all well and keeping
safe.
As a long time resident at 305 San Vicente
Blvd., I am thrilled the building is up
for the honor
of a City Landmark.
We feel our building is very unique in
it's mid century architecture--especially
the open air
indoor hallways(even more important with
the pandemic).
I don't believe there is another building
like it in the city or probably the
county.
And, something special most people miss is
the sign out front--partially destroyed,
that reads: "Imperial Apartments."
That in itself is worthy of protection--
and possibly refurbishment.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Thank you for considering a place we've
called home for over the past 26 years as
a City Landmark.
Warm Regards~
Glenn Darby
305 San Vicente Blvd. Resident
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
From:Ruthann Lehrer
To:Roger Genser; Barry Rosenbaum; Dolly Sloan; Amy Beth Green; Jodi Summers; Kenneth Breisch; Richard Brand;Planning Commission Comments
Cc:Stephanie Reich
Subject:Item 10C on 10/12/20 Landmarks Commission agenda
Date:Monday, October 12, 2020 9:34:03 AM
EXTERNAL
October 12, 2020
Item 10C, 305 San Vicente Boulevard Landmark Designation Application
Chair Genser and Commissioners,
Our landmarks ordinance does not require that significance for an architect must relate to
their work in Santa Monica, as implied in the peer review report and by staff. Criteria 5 states
“It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer or architect.” Considering the range and scope of Reisbord’s career, his entire body
of work may well be considered notable under this criterion.
The peer review doesn’t consider the architectural design itself as potentially meeting either
criteria 2 or 4, one or both of which may be applicable. The applicant’s consultant provides a
brief but compelling architectural description, but applies the analysis only to criteria 5:
The Imperial Apartments exemplify Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style
as applied to the multi-story apartment housing type. The building’s simple but strikinggeometric forms create a dynamic composition on both the exterior facade and interior
courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining bold,geometric forms and simple details that when viewed together create a surprisingly
intricately designed space and interesting composition of solid and void. The courtyardwalkways are also strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter
within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design ofintersecting volumes and planes. The Imperial Apartments is, therefore, a
representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord and eligible for designation as aSanta Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
The building is a later design phase of courtyard housing than the contributors to the San
Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District, but that fact may be worthy of analysis as
indicative of the evolution of courtyard housing in Santa Monica.
I hope that the Commission will continue this matter to a future public hearing and allow the
applicant an opportunity to return with a strengthened application. The applicant could be
advised to present their own findings under the landmarks criteria for designation.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
From:Carol Lemlein
To:Roger Genser; Barry Rosenbaum; Amy Beth Green; dolly.sloan@smgov.net; jodiknew@gmail.com; KennethBreisch; Richard Brand; Planning Commission Comments
Cc:Stephanie Reich
Subject:Re: Items 10B, 10C, and 10D on Landmarks Commission Agenda, 10/12/20
Date:Monday, October 12, 2020 10:21:26 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Landmarks Commission,
This letter addresses concerns raised by the three landmark designationapplications, Items 10A, 10B and 10C. It was gratifying to see in these
three designation applications on tonight’s agenda that staff has
streamlined the application process to make it more tenable for reduced
staff capacity and more affordable for applicants.
My colleague Ruthann Lehrer, long the Architectural Historian on this
Commission, has sent you specific recommendations regarding aspects of
the properties which have been overlooked, which we believe to be atleast partially the result of the process issues described below.
The approach staff has taken is dependent on a revised landmark
designation application, which we don’t have. As we can see by the resultspresented tonight, use of the current application for the streamlined
process may not result in submissions with enough factual information
upon which to make a determination. For this new process to be effective,
the new application should address the criteria specifically and stress theneed for documentation. Historically, the city’s landmark designation
application has been focused on providing a platform for any person, not
only professionals, to present what they believe makes a property worthy
of designation. Now we are requiring presentation of thoroughlyresearched facts that support designation. It’s a whole new ballgame.
When the application form is revised to include a statement of findings
according to the criteria for designation, the consultant’s review of thematerials should not be only a peer review of the research methodology, itshould also be a peer review of the conclusions. Where the peer report
finds deficiencies in the research or conclusions, the report can be
presented to the applicant in order for them to correct the deficienciesbefore it is placed on the Commission agenda.
In the applications before you tonight, the applicants hired professional
historic preservation consultants who are fully capable of presenting thekind of information, and drawing the necessary conclusions as suggestedwere lacking in the city consult’s peer review. It would appear that they
were not aware that that was the information called for in the application
stage.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
We suggest that the commission continue all three applications, to allow
the applicant to present the complete information they would have
presented if it had been clear in the application it was required.
Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein
Santa Monica Conservancy Advocacy Committee
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment G
ATTACHMENT G – BUILDING PERMIT RECORD
(Includes only building permits that pertain to physical building alterations—excluding
mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits)
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: GPA
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451 HISTORICS@AOL.COM
1
Ostashay & Associates
consulting
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 12/31/2021
From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC
Re: Peer Review: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
Overview
This memorandum (memo) has been prepared at the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning &
Community Development Department, City Planning Division (the City). The purpose of the memo is
to provide a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report entitled Landmark
Assessment Report in Support of Appeal dated December 30 2020, that was prepared by GPA
Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property.
On April 27, 2020, the applicant, H. Joseph Soleiman with Mid Century SV LP, submitted a Landmark
Designation Application for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property prepared by GPA Consulting on
behalf of the property owner. At the request of the City, a peer review of the landmark application
was prepared by Jan Ostashay of OAC (dated October 5, 2020), who found the application’s
assessment of the property lacking sufficient evidence and compelling arguments to support the
proposed landmark designation. The City’s Landmarks Commission reviewed the landmark
application, peer review assessment, staff report, and public comments during a public hearing on
October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0119). Upon deliberation, the
Commission motioned to deny the application based on the information provided in the staff report
and the peer review. The motion was unanimously approved by the commissioners of the Landmarks
Commission.
An appeal of the denial made by the Landmarks Commission was filed on October 22, 2020, and an
updated landmark assessment report was prepared by GPA Consulting in response to the
Commission’s motion made at their October 2020 hearing. The updated landmark assessment report
has been peer reviewed by OAC and OAC’s findings are discussed herein this memo. In summary, OAC
agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy City of Santa Monica
Landmark criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual
characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under
Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies
these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and
architecture merit. It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy any of
the necessary Landmark criteria and, therefore, is ineligible for recognition as a City Landmark.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
2
Methodology
To complete this peer review memo, Ms. Ostashay completed the following tasks:
• Reviewed the initial Landmark Designation Application material (May 27, 2020) and also
reviewed the updated Landmark Assessment Report for the subject property dated
December 30, 2020 prepared by GPA Consulting. Also reviewed the associated Appeal Form
filed with the City dated October 22, 2020.
• Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance, 2018 Historic Context Statement (HCS), 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)
Update, San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment (2015), San Vicente
Apartments Courtyard Housing Study (2009), and other prior city-sponsored historic
resources surveys and survey updates. OAC also reviewed other related survey material
prepared in association with SurveyLA, which was a City of Los Angeles sponsored project.
• Reviewed the staff report, public comment, and minutes of the Landmark Commission
hearing of October 12, 2020, at which the subject property was reviewed and considered by
the Commission for Landmark designation. Also listened to the audio transcript of the
Landmarks Commission hearing of October 12, 2020 via the City’s website.
• Conducted additional research on the history of the subject property; its original
owner/builder and architect; physical alterations; and past owners and occupants. In
addition, reviewed archival material associated with the subject property and architect on file
with the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University
of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). The UCSB repository maintains the Samuel Reisbord
papers, which includes architectural drawings, information on projects he worked on, and
associated personal ephemeral material. The extent of the research conducted by OAC was
limited to what was necessary to assess the validity of the evaluation findings presented in
the updated assessment report.
• Reviewed relevant published National Park Service (NPS) guidance on evaluating the
significance of potential historic properties. These bulletins and guidelines help to provide
understanding and clarity in the application of the significance criteria for evaluation,
development of appropriate historic contexts, and assessing historical integrity to those
properties under consideration for potential landmark eligibility. The use of these
publications is standard professional industry practice, and helps to disseminate the essential
information gathered to make a sound and justifiable evaluation of historical significance.
• Also searched the National Register of Historic Places online database, the City’s online
sources, and OAC’s in-house library for any properties evaluated or designated for similar
reasons as those outlined in the application and assessment report, i.e. association with
multi-family residential development, architecture and aesthetics, master architect, etc.
• Analyzed the assessment findings and researched presented in the application’s updated
landmark assessment report for validity, clarity, and conformance with the basic professional
principles and best practices for evaluating the significance of potential historic properties.
• Summarized the results of all of the tasks listed above within this memo.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
3
Landmark Designation Application and Assessment Report
The original Landmark Designation Application, dated April 27, 2020, for the apartment building
located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard consisted of a Landmark designation application form along
with supporting attachments (attachment “A” describing the property, attachment “B” providing a
statement of architectural significance and the identification of character-defining features,
attachment “C” the bibliography, attachment “D” photographs of the property, and attachment “E”
building permit history). This is the document the Landmarks Commission reviewed and considered at
their hearing October 12, 2020, for which they deliberated and denied the landmark application.
An updated Landmark assessment report, dated December 30, 2020, was prepared as a response to
the Commission’s findings to deny designation of the subject property as a City Landmark and which
the appeal is supported. The updated Landmark assessment report includes an executive summary,
introduction, methodology statement on the tasks performed, identification of prior evaluations of
the subject property, development of a historic context with associated themes presented, a property
description narrative (architectural description, construction history, ownership and tenant history),
application of City Landmark criteria and evaluation for local landmark designation, analysis of
historical integrity, identification of character-defining features, a conclusionary statement, and
bibliography. The assessment report also includes several supporting attachments (resume of
evaluator, current photographs, tenant history and newspaper advertisements, Sanborn Maps, earlier
newspaper accounts of architect Samuel Reisbord’s work (1940s-1950s), public comments in support
of the property’s landmarking, and building permit history.
Peer Review Assessment
OAC has peer reviewed the updated landmark assessment report prepared by GPA related to the
property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard for overall adequacy and the property’s potential local
Landmark eligibility. The peer review analysis by OAC of the property’s potential historic significance,
evaluation of historical integrity, and assessment findings for historical designation under the
established City Landmark criteria is presented as follows.
Construction History, Alterations, Integrity Assessment
The subject property is a large multi-family residential building designed with a rectangular shaped
plan that is centered around a series of small interior courtyards. The three-story structure was
completed in 1961 and was finalized for occupancy by the City in the summer of 1962. It was built
with a semi-subterranean garage accessed at ground floor level with 36 units on the upper floors. An
in-ground swimming pool was also added in 1962 and is offset at the southwest corner of the parcel
within the front setback behind a curving brick wall. Because of its design and elevated placement on
the lot, many of the building features, such as the entry lobby area and staircase, multi-level interior
open courtyards, internal open-air bridging corridors (walkways), fenestration, integrated planters,
and front entries to the apartment units are not visible from the public rights-of-way. The building
complex was designed by architect Samuel Reisbord and built by Los Angeles-based Lyons
Construction Company for then owners Joseph and Leo Lyons (who owned and operated Lyons
Construction).
The apartment building, called “The Imperial,” exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium
style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
4
1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized
as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-
Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The smooth stucco surfaces, clean
rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows, slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing,
integrated parking, flat roof with light wells, and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior
courtyard features typifies this style. The building’s only readily visible detailing, outside of the original
moniker sign that reads “Imperial Apartments” in period scripted font, occurs on the front façade with
a series of solids to voids that include extended balconies, plain stucco wall surfaces, engaged stucco
planter boxes set below windows, and the flat roof overhang with wide geometric fascia board trim at
the upper eave line. An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured
rows of long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that spanned the
entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and engaged plastered planter
boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature; however, is no longer extant on the building,
but for the single remaining fascia board trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has
greatly impacted the architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent.
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and Design
Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the UCSB campus as well as the extant fascia board at
the front eave line, this unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s
overall design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical façade. In
reading the permit history on file with the City, this series of decorative fascia trim boards were most
likely damaged and removed following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the
earthquake the City’s emergency response teams began conducting building inspections throughout
the community. The building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard
apartment building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes on
the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural engineer stated
the building had severe racking of walls with obvious severe damage and distress. The property was
then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1, 1994, the building was re-inspected with field
notes that stated the anchor bolts on the building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The
“ornamental wall face at front of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to
expose additional anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia
boards were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had displaced,
but posed no immediate hazard. Among other details, the inspector further noted that the west (side)
wall had moved three (3) inches and that the anchor bolts were cracked and had cracked the concrete
walls in some places. Upon concluding the second inspection, the building was issued a “green tag”
and in the coming months was stabilized and repaired, as required.
Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible from the
public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century Modern stylistic design
intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front elevation at grade level is now
dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the driveway leading into the parking garage, and the
nondescript solid curving brick wall that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and
rear elevations of the structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by
flush set aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails (there are also integrated
carports at the rear elevation accessed from the alley). In consideration of the prior alterations made
to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its current lack of street presence, the
architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. It is
also OAC’s professional opinion that the property’s historical integrity of design, material,
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
5
workmanship, and feeling has also been affected. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings
made in the updated GPA landmark assessment report that the property retains all seven qualities of
integrity.
Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the
“authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that
existed during the property’s…historic period.”1 A property eligible for local designation must satisfy
the applicable significance criteria and should retain enough of its historic character and original
appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource. The seven qualities or aspects of historical
integrity are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style
of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular
period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during
any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of
time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.
Landmark Findings
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance) of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance includes criteria and
procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts.
Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is
found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City.
Pursuant to Section 9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a City Landmark
if it satisfies one or more of the following six criteria:
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.
1 National Register Bulletin No 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, 1995).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
6
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 style 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.
The peer review of the updated landmark assessment report findings for City of Santa Monica
Landmark eligibility is as follows:
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political, or architectural history of the City.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant
under Criterion 1 for symbolizing the larger citywide trend of increased density and the early results of
the change in the City’s zoning ordinance in 1959, which allowed for the area to resemble what it is
today. GPA also found the property to be significant as a unique example of the courtyard apartment
development trend and as an example of a transitional property type built following the changes in
the City’s 1959 zoning ordinance. The GPA assessment furthers argues that the subject property
represents an important aspect of this period in the neighborhood’s architectural history.
The eligibility standards of the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement indicate that multi-
family residential properties eligible under Criterion 1 may be significant as the site of an important
event in history; for exemplifying an important trend, pattern, or type of multi-family residential
development; or as an early rare, or excellent example of a multi-family residential property type.2
The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous
multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for
housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings was to provide
inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend
that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern
California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a
seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not
an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the
City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential
development pattern in the post-World War II period within the City. Although the construction of
the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single
building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development
pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to
2 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources
Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development,
August 9, 2019).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
7
its primary (front, south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material,
and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and
accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history
of the City.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not appear to satisfy the tenets of
Criterion 1. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark
assessment report that the property appears significant under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant
under Criterion 2 for its “uniquely designed interior courtyard.” The interior courtyard space is lit by a
number of light wells that pierce the center portion of the flat roof of the building. Within the
courtyard is a network of open-air bridging corridors (walkways) as well as large integrated
trapezoidal shaped concrete planters. GPA argues that this internal feature of the building, which is
not visible from any public right-of-way, has aesthetic interest and value and, therefore, qualifies
under Landmark Criterion 2. The GPA report also states that there are no other examples of this
courtyard design in multi-family housing from the period found in Santa Monica or the Los Angeles
area.
According to the guidance from the NPS, “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully
articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible;
however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of
its type.”3 It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not possess sufficient
aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the
apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further
removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further,
the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to
consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.
The statement made by GPA claiming there are no other examples of its type in Santa Monica or the
Los Angeles area is unsupported as no evidence that substantiates this claim was provided in the
report as a footnote or reference. As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from
the early 1960s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is
possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist.
Several publications, including Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving by John Chase; By-Right, By-Design by
Liz Falletta; and Dingbat 2.0 edited by Thurman Grant and Joshua G. Stein all note the proliferation
and ubiquity of these formulaic apartment buildings many of which share common design features,
and were designed by architects of note, including Sam Reisbord, Jack Chernoff, Herman Fidler, John
Day, A. J. Arnay, and Max Starkman. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic
or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2. Therefore, OAC does not
concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark assessment report that the property
appears significant under Criterion 2.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation, Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1997.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
8
Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or
national history.
OAC concurs with GPA’s finding that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: It embodies the 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.
Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on
the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation
under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective
construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the
materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the
region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be
considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a
stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not necessarily epitomize any type of
uncommon or unique design. From the public right-of-way, it appears to be a typical example of its
respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.
According to the registration requirements in the 2018 citywide historic context statement, properties
eligible for their architectural style “may be significant as an excellent or rare example of an
architectural style, property type, or designed landscape.” The document emphasizes that “due to the
quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under
this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features.”4
As mentioned, the subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common
podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and
early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best
characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the
“classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the
building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its
current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear
inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry
lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters,
fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the
structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way. As the interior courtyard features (along
with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley
they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced
by the general public.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its
type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of
construction, or architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style
4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
9
elsewhere in the City, including along San Vicente Boulevard. Therefore, OAC does not concur with
GPA’s finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property satisfies the intent of Landmark Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect.
The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original
permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel
Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at
UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment
buildings throughout the Los Angeles region and as a notable practitioner of Mid-Century Modern
architecture. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract
homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as
apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career that stretched around the world and
allowed him to work with some of the masters in architecture, including Albert Kahn and Paul R.
Williams (as well as designer Alvin Lustig).
His professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in
the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The subject property is
one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his
career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia
board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with
the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically
“reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment building with
limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or
prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated
with his prolific career designing striking Modern style multi-family apartment buildings. It is;
therefore, OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 5.
As such, OAC does not concur with GPA’s finding that the subject property satisfies Landmark
Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
OAC concurs with the GPA finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is ineligible for
landmark listing under Landmark Criterion 6.
Conclusion
OAC has completed a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report, dated
December 30, 2020, which was prepared by GPA Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard
property. The peer review was conducted by OAC to ensure that the current identification and
evaluation efforts of the subject property for historical significance are adequate and that the findings
of the GPA assessment report are sound and well justified.
5 Samuel Reisbord Papers, Architecture and Design Collection – Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara. Known work in Santa Monica designed by Samuel Reisbord includes 2046 14th Street
(1954), 2201 Pico Boulevard (1962, demo), 901 10th Street (1970), 824 4th Street (1971), 914 4th Street (1972), 937
3rd Street (1970), 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
10
As summary, OAC agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy Landmark
criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual
characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under
Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies
these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and
architecture merit for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs. The property lacks integrity as
well as sufficient historical and architectural significance. Based on review of documentary evidence,
site analysis, identification of historic contexts, consideration of integrity, and evaluation against local
eligibility criteria, OAC concludes the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is not individually eligible
for listing as a City of Santa Monica Landmark.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
11
ATTACHMENT A:
Supporting Ephemeral Material
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
“Imperial Apartments” original rendering by Samuel Reisbord, AIA, 1960c (UCSB)
Classified Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, 12-09-1962
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
Front (south) façade view, looking northwest, nd (MLS)
Swimming pool area behind brick wall in front of building (southwest corner of parcel), nd (MLS)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northwest, 2020c (Bing Map)
Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northeast, 2020c (Bing Map)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
Aerial view –San Vicente Boulevard, 1968 (UCSB)
Aerial view –San Vicente Boulevard (crop), 1968 (UCSB)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard
16
ATTACHMENT B:
Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal
(updated Landmark assessment report)
305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402
December 30, 2020
(Prepared by GPA Consulting, Los Angeles, CA)
[UNDER SEPARATE COVER]
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 1
MINUTES
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VIA TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2020
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION:
Chair Genser called the meeting to order at 7:26 PM
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Richard Brand
Kenneth Breisch
Roger Genser, Chair
Amy Green
Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore
Dolores Sloan
Jodi Summers
Also Present:
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III
1-A. Oath of Office for New Commissioner Jodi Summers
Oath of Office for Reappointment of Commissioner Richard Brand
7:27 PM
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner and Liaison
to the Landmarks Commission, administered the oath of office to Commissioners
Summers and Brand.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 2
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
7:30 PM
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum nominated Chair Genser for a second term as
Chairperson.
A voice vote was held and the nomination was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Breisch nominated Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum for a second
term as Chair Pro Tempore.
A voice vote was held and the nomination was approved unanimously.
3. REPORT FROM STAFF:
7:33 PM
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner and
Liaison to the Landmarks Commission provided the report from staff including
upcoming items for Landmarks Commission review, information that an appeal on
the designation of 1626 California as a Structure of Merit had been received, and
noted that the ARB will be discussing additional streamlining in November, and
she also stated that the November meeting of the Landmarks Commission will be
cancelled with the next meeting to be determined.
Commissioners asked about liaison and subcommittee assignments. Deputy City
Attorney Heidi von Tongeln identified that the subcommittees may be able to meet
but asked the Commissioners work with staff as the Emergency Order limits items
that can be discussed at the meetings.
4. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
7:38 PM
Nothing to report.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• August 24,2020
7:41 PM
Commissioners offered minor corrections. Commissioner Green made a motion to
approve with corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 3
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0022, 1626 California
Avenue: approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit.
7:43 PM
Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a
motion to approve. Chair Genser seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the
motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6-B. Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0015, 124 Hart Avenue:
approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit.
7:51 PM
Commissioner Breisch offered a minor correction and made a motion to approve
as corrected. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion. A roll call was
held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6-C. Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0199 for a proposed project
located at 1413 Michigan Avenue consisting of a 4-story, 100% affordable housing
project with 57 units, 1 manager unit, ground floor amenities, 12 parking spaces,
and the rehabilitation of a one-story landmark structure (Santa Monica Nikkei Hall).
7:52 PM
Commissioner Brand made a motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Green
seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the
following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 4
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9. OLD BUSINESS:
None.
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0160, 401 Ocean Avenue, consideration of
an amendment to Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 which included the
rehabilitation, and restoration of the existing residence known as the
Henry Weyse/Charles Morris House, a designated City Landmark, a new four-
story residential building and associated landscape improvements. Proposed is
the inclusion of a new/ additional second entry door on the Landmark structure at
the recessed porch facing Ocean Avenue, and a new/ additional fence at the
corner of the property, including the west and north frontages.
7:53 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners Brand, Green, Rosenbaum,
Sloan, Summers, and Chair Genser met with the applicant team.
Ms. Reich presented the staff report.
Commissioners had questions:
The following members of the applicant team presented to the Commission:
David Kaplan (architect) and Ken Kutcher (attorney representing HLKK). Mr.
Kaplan presented the additional front door and fence in detail, clarifying the
varied height of the fence, as well as the color and size of the vertical pickets.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 5
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant, read public correspondence from Nina Fresco &
Ruth Shari into the record.
Commission discussion included the following points: Commissioner Sloan noted
that the corner appears slightly rounded and suggested the fence configuration
reflect that geometry as a consideration. Commissioners noted that the fence
should be a dark bronze color rather than black.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that the project complies with
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for purposes of the CEQA analysis.
Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to approve and offered specific
language for the STOA. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion with a
condition that the color of the fence be bronze.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-B. Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0130 for the property located at 818
Grant Street to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or
in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether
an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to
preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks
Commission will consider the application based on whether the application,
research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one
or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.100(A).
9:00 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site except for Commissioners Brand and Breisch.
Ms. Reich presented the Staff Report.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 6
The following members of the applicant team presented to the Commission:
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neill from GPA Consulting in support of the
property as a City Landmark. Ms. Von Ahrens clarified that the windows have
been replaced in the original openings, although a couple of original existing
windows remain. Ms. O’Neill stated that since the property was included in the HRI
and there is a historic context statement that is relatively recent (adopted
September 2018) that research can be relied upon for the designation.
Ms. Radwan read a comment from Nina Fresco that included history of the
property and included images and DPR sheets that Ms. Radwan shared on her
screen.
Ms. Reich noted that while the information on the application exceeded
requirements, this application has been treated differently than applications prior
to the budget crisis brought on by the pandemic, in that there was a peer review
of the application provided rather than a full assessment by the City’s consultant.
She also noted that going forward, the process will be different, as there will be a
full assessment provided.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum asked for the City Attorney’s perspective on Ms.
O’Neill’s burden of proof arguments she made based on the fact that the property
was on the HRI. Ms. Von Tongeln stated that has not been the position of the City
or the Commission in the past. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that there is not sufficient
information included in the application or presentation and suggested the item be
continued rather than denied. Chair Genser stated his agreement.
Commissioner Sloan made a motion to continue the item and requested more
information be provided by the applicant team. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum
seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-C. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 for the property located at 305 San
Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building in
whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated,
whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order
to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks
Commission will consider the application based on whether the application,
research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 7
one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.100(A).
9:43 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the property.
Stephanie Reich presented the staff report.
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neil from GPA Consulting representing the
applicant team. Ms. Von Ahrens provided a presentation for the applicant team,
emphasizing that the property meets the criteria for designation based on its
association with architect Samuel Reisbord, detailing his accomplishments as an
architect and details of the building including the interior courtyard.
Ms. Radwan read a public comment in opposition to the designation.
Daniel Negari, property owner, identified his intention to preserve and restore the
property. He stated, in rebuttal to the public comment, that there is tremendous
pride of ownership. Joseph Soleiman, property owner, stated that they do not
intend to put the property up for sale.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that one or both of criteria 2 or 4 could be
included in a designation and asked the consultant. Ms. O’Neill stated that while
those criteria are not excluded, they were not the focus of the study that was
provided as part of the application.
Commissioner Breisch stated that while Samuel Reisbord had an interesting
career this is not a significant representation of his work and can be associated
with other similar apartment buildings of that era. While he stated that it may not
be a badly designed building it doesn’t rise to the level of a landmark.
The Commission agreed that property doesn’t stand out as having anything
remarkable that would make it be cited.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that he may have been leaning to
requesting additional information, but after the discussion is in support of the staff
recommendation.
Chair Genser stated that the building and architect should be significant to be the
criteria for designation.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to deny based on the staff report
and the peer review comments. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion. A roll
call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 8
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-D. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0120 for the property located
at 621 San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential
building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so
designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and
described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The
Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the
application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the
building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation
pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
10:21 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site.
Ms. Reich presented the Staff Report.
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neil from GPA Consulting representing the
applicant team. Ms. Von Ahrens emphasized that the property exemplifies Kenneth
N. Lind’s architecture and style. Ms. O’Neill stated that there may be sufficient
detail for the building to warrant designation under criteria 4.
Commissioner Sloan asked about the metal ornamentation or sculpture on the
façade. The property owner stated that he understood that the original owner
commissioned the artwork.
Commissioner Brand made a motion to deny the application based on the staff
report & peer review. Commissioner Summers seconded the motion.
AYES: Brand, Summers
NAYS: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The motion failed to pass.
Commissioner Genser made a motion to continue to request additional information
on the property and the sculpture with investigation into criteria 2 and 4.
Commissioner Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and
approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 9
AYES: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan,
NAYS: Brand
ABSTAIN: Summers
ABSENT: None
11:00 PM
Chair Genser made a motion for the meeting to proceed past 11pm. Chair Pro
Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously
approved by a voice vote.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Selection of a representative to the City Council meeting on October 13, 2020
regarding Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0050 at 909 Montana
Avenue.
11:01 PM
Chair Genser requested a volunteer, but none were available.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and
comment is permitted.)
None.
13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA:
Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, December 14,
2020 Via Teleconference Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 Issued by
Governor Gavin Newsom.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Brand adjourned the meeting at 11:06 PM on Monday, October 12,
2020.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 1
AGENDA
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VIA TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2020
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 PM
TELECONFERENCE*: https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/dtdrqust
DIAL-IN NUMBER: 1 (415) 466-7000 (US), PIN 2222352 #
*Chrome Browser Recommended
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: A Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission has been
called for Monday at 7PM, October 12. In an effort to reduce the risk of spreading
Coronavirus (COVID-19), the members of the Landmarks Commission and City staff will
participate via teleconference. Participants may also join via the teleconference link
above.
Those wishing to give public comment must make the request via email to
planningcomment@smgov.net. Please note the agenda item in your comments.
Comments received later than noon the day of the meeting will be read aloud at the
meeting (with time limitations) and must be received prior to the Commission’s
consideration of the item.
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
1. ROLL CALL
1-A. Oath of Office for New Commissioner Jodi Summers
Oath of Office for Reappointment of Commissioner Richard Brand
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
3. REPORT FROM STAFF:
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 2
Information concerning future Landmarks Commission Agendas. Update on recent
Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council actions,
including development projects, planning policy studies, ordinances, appeals and
update of project status and related landmarks matters.
4. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 24,2020
6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0022, 1626 California
Avenue: approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit.
6-B. Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0015, 124 Hart Avenue:
approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit.
6-C. Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0199 for a proposed project
located at 1413 Michigan Avenue consisting of a 4-story, 100% affordable housing
project with 57 units, 1 manager unit, ground floor amenities, 12 parking spaces,
and the rehabilitation of a one-story landmark structure (Santa Monica Nikkei Hall).
7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
9. OLD BUSINESS:
None
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0160, 401 Ocean Avenue, consideration of
an amendment to Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 which included the
rehabilitation, and restoration of the existing residence known as the Henry
Weyse/Charles Morris House, a designated City Landmark, a new four-story
residential building and associated landscape improvements. Proposed is the
inclusion of a new/ additional second entry door on the Landmark structure at the
recessed porch facing Ocean Avenue, and a new/ additional fence at the corner
of the property, including the west and north frontages.
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 3
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Statement of Official Action for 401 Ocean Avenue (STOA 17ENT-0077)
D. Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 (Staff Report)
E. Project Drawings dated June 11, 2018 18ENT-0142
10-B. Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0130 for the property located at 818
Grant Street to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or
in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether
an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to
preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks
Commission will consider the application based on whether the application,
research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one
or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
10-C. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 for the property located at 305
San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building
in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated,
whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order
to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks
Commission will consider the application based on whether the application,
research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets
one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
10-D. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0120 for the property located at 621
San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building
in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated,
whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order
to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks
Commission will consider the application based on whether the application,
research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 4
or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Selection of a representative to the City Council meeting on October 13, 2020
regarding Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0050 at 909 Montana
Avenue.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and
comment is permitted.)
NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the
Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, December 14, 2020 Via
Teleconference Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 Issued by Governor Gavin
Newsom
13. ADJOURNMENT
CITY LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Richard Brand, Commission Licensed Architect
Kenneth Breisch, Commission Architectural Historian
Roger Genser, Commission Local Historian, Chairperson
Amy Green, Commissioner
Barry Rosenbaum, Commissioner, Chair Pro Tempore
Dolores Sloan, Commissioner
Jodi Summers, Commission Real Estate Licensee
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner
Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Regina Szilak, Associate Planner
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant
Melissa Zak, Staff Assistant
STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC
MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously;
• Listen to others respectfully;
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 5
• Exercise self-control;
• Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;
• Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate;
• Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent
components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
AGENDA POLICIES:
REQUESTS TO SPEAK During teleconference meetings, members of the public may
email their comments to planningcomment@smgov.net. Comments will be read into the
record by the Commission secretary on behalf of the public, with a reading time limit in
accordance with Commission rules. All requests to address the Commission on public
hearing items must be submitted prior to the Commission's consideration of the item.
CONSENT CALENDAR items will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without
discussion unless a Commission requests discussion on an item. If such a request is
made, the item will be heard after the balance of the Consent Calendar has been voted
upon.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES on each public hearing item include presentation of
a staff report; Commission question of staff; a five minute presentation by the project
applicant or application proponent, if any, or property owner; Commission questions of
the applicant or application proponent or property owner; three minutes each for each
member of the public wishing to speak to the item; three minutes for project applicant or
applicant proponent or property owner rebuttal; Commission deliberations and decision.
Professionals appearing before the Commission should clearly identify their status, such
as “attorney,” paralegal,” “architect,” “designer,” or “landscape architect.” Instances of
misrepresentation of professional status may be referred to the City Attorney for possible
prosecution.
LETTERS OR WRITTEN MATERIALS for agenda items may be submitted to
Commission staff prior to or at the meeting; written materials submitted at least eight days
in advance of the meeting will be included in the Commission’s meeting packet. Materials
submitted after the deadline may be difficult to adequately review.
ACTION BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION on most matters occurs with the
affirmative votes of at least four Commissioners.
APPEALS of certain actions of the Commission may be heard by the City Council. For
specific information on appeals, please contact the Commission staff.
Please note that the Landmarks Commission Agenda is subject to change up to 72
hours prior to the scheduled meeting. We encourage you to check the agenda 72
hours prior to the meeting.
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 6
For more information regarding the Landmarks Commission Agenda, please contact
Stephanie Reich at stephanie.reich@smgov.net
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Glenn D. <glennheidi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 19, 2022 3:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:20ENT-0247 Appeal of City Landmark
EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members,
Our family has been a happy Santa Monica resident for over 28 years here at 305 San Vicente
Blvd. And, because it is rent‐controlled we've been able to stay here and proudly support the local
economy all those years‐‐and yes, we most certainly vote!
Question(s) for you. What does or why would the owner of our building want it to be a City
Landmark? Since it is currently for sale, after they purchased it about three years ago, is there
some sort of business decision that they will benefit from? And finally, what does or doesn't a
City Landmark mean for us renters?
Note: We've been asking for certain repairs(stove, dishwasher and floors) for over a year and still
haven't received them. Will this designation help us get those repairs for our unit?
Thank you so much for your time. We love Santa monica and will stay here for another 28 years.
Warmest Regards,
Glenn
Item 9.A 09/27/22
1 of 1 Item 9.A 09/27/22
9.A.k
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comment (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))