Santa Monica City Council
May 10, 2022

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

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography ATTACHMENT C – BIBLIOGRAPHY

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography

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/cgibin/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=jeannettereisbord&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. 6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

ATTACHMENT D – PHOTOGRAPHS

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

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.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

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

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

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.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

Figure 7: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

Figure 8: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

Figure 9: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 3rd floor. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs

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.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment E, Building Permits

ATTACHMENT E – BUILDING PERMITS
(Includes only building permits that pertain to physical building alterations— excluding mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits)

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: 20ENT-

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: 20ENT-

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: 20ENT-

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: 20ENT-

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (4442 : 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

6.B.d
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (4442 : 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.

6.B.d
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451
[email protected]
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.

6.B.e
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (4442 : 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.

6.B.e
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (4442 : 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.

6.B.e
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (4442 : 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.

6.B.e
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (4442 : 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]

6.B.e
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (4442 : 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 MidCentury 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

6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (4442 : 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

6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (4442 : 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

6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (4442 : 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 COVID19 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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. 6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 semisubterranean, 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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, U7 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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, moderatelypriced 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793. 19 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/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/cgibin/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/cgibin/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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 accordionstyle 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 reroofed 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 workingclass 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 multifamily 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 ArslanianBosnian, 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 characterdefining 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 1950s1960s 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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, flushmounted 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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, semisubterranean 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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/cgibin/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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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=jeannettereisbord&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 eBook. 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – RÉSUMÉ

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B ATTACHMENT B – CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C 1962 California Voter Registration. Ancestry.com.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D ATTACHMENT D – SANBORN MAPS

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment F ATTACHMENT F – PUBLIC COMMENTS

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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 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.

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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of From: Carol Lemlein
To: Roger Genser; Barry Rosenbaum; Amy Beth Green; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kenneth Breisch; 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 designation applications, 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 at least 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 results presented 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 the need 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 thoroughly researched 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 the materials should not be only a peer review of the research methodology, it should 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 deficiencies before 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 the kind of information, and drawing the necessary conclusions as suggested were 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.

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : 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)

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: GPA

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: GPA

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: GPA

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: GPA
19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19

6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451
[email protected]
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.

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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.

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 3 Landmark Designation Application and AssessmentReport 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

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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” MidCentury 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 featurestypifies 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,

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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).

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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 multifamily 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).

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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.

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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.

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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 3 rd Street (1970), 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961).

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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.

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 11 ATTACHMENT A:

Supporting Ephemeral Material

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of “Imperial Apartments” original rendering by Samuel Reisbord, AIA, 1960c (UCSB) Classified Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, 12-09-1962

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Front (south) façade view, looking northwest, nd (MLS)
Swimming pool area behind brick wall in front of building (southwest corner of parcel), nd (MLS)

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northwest, 2020c (Bing Map) Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northeast, 2020c (Bing Map)

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Aerial view
–San Vicente Boulevard, 1968(UCSB)
Aerial view–San Vicente Boulevard(crop), 1968 (UCSB)

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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]

6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc [Revision 1] (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 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.

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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:

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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:

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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 fourstory 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.

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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.

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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:

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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:

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : 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.

6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (4442 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cola, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Text of the City's Zoning Ordinance to Establish a Conditional Use Permit Requirement to Allow a Lawful Nonconforming Restaurant Located Within the R2 or R3 Zoning District that Meets Minimum Requirements to Provide Meal and Alcohol Service to the General Public
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting of April 26, 2022, the City Council adopted for first reading an ordinance amending the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to establish a Conditional Use Permit requirement to allow a lawful nonconforming hotel restaurant located within the R2 or R3 Zoning District that meets minimum requirements to provide meal and alcohol service to the general public.

The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council

7.A
Packet Pg. 1506
2 of 2
Attachments:

A. CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022

7.A
Packet Pg. 1507
1 City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE TO

ESTABLISH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LAWFUL NONCONFORMING HOTEL RESTAURANT LOCATED WITHIN THE R2 OR R3

ZONING DISTRICT THAT MEETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE MEAL

AND ALCOHOL SERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020 and April 19, 2021, the Oceana hotel filed applications for two Conditional Use Permits, 20ENT-0237 and 21ENT-0090, to provide meal and alcohol services offered by the Oceana Hotel’s existing onsite restaurant to the general public; and
WHEREAS, also on October 7, 2020, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(C), the Oceana filed an application for a text amendment, 20ENT0236, to establish a Conditional Use Permit requirement to allow a lawful nonconforming hotel restaurant located in the R2 or R3 District that meets minimum requirements to provide meal and alcohol service to the general public; and WHEREAS, hotel uses have been in existence in the R2 and R3 zoning districts since at least 1958; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1543 (CCS), which prohibited hotel uses in certain areas of the R2 and R3 Districts and provided that those uses would be subject to termination within 20 years; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 2 WHEREAS, on November 28, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1832 (CCS), which established that even though hotels were not permitted in the R2 and R3 Districts, hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995, or their replacement, would be considered permitted uses, subject to certain standards and limitations, and that such hotels were permitted to increase the number of rooms by five percent or five rooms, whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2213 (CCS), which increased the limitation on the number of guest rooms that could be added to a hotel existing as of January 1, 1995 in the R2 and R3 Districts to twenty-five percent, or fifteen rooms, whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, the City’s new Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 through 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), became effective on July 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance reclassified hotels in R2 and R3 Districts in existence as of January 1, 1995 as lawful nonconforming uses, subject to the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.27.050, including a prohibition against a substantial change in mode or character of the lawful nonconforming use; and WHEREAS, hotels located in the R2 and R3 Districts as of January 1, 1995 have become known and long-standing neighborhood features; and WHEREAS, allowing lawful nonconforming restaurant uses in those hotels that had received a Conditional Use Permit to serve alcohol as of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance to serve the general public will expand the local-serving uses available to the neighborhood within walk or short distance away; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 3 WHEREAS, establishing a Conditional Use Permit requirement for such an expansion to general public use will provide a discretionary public hearing process to review the necessity of requiring special conditions to manage and avoid potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and to further safeguard the residents and protect the integrity of the neighborhood while providing residents the opportunity to enjoy expanded goods and services in and around the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2021, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.060(D), the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider its recommendations to the City Council, and, after considering oral and written testimony, a motion to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a conditional use permit requirement to allow a lawful nonconforming hotel restaurant located within the R2 or R3 Districts that meets minimum requirements to provide meal and alcohol services to the general public failed on a 3-3 vote, resulting in a technical denial of the recommendation; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing to consider the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and desires to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing on April 26, 2022 regarding the proposed changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 4 1. The Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent in principle with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, in particular Citywide and Neighborhood goals and policies of the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) adopted on July 6, 2010. Goal LU3, Policies LU3.3, LU4.2, and Goal N3, Policies N3.1 seek to focus on creating local-serving uses, particularly uses that serve residents’ daily needs and are located within easy walking distance in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips.

Goal N3.2 seeks to allow and support small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods with a land use designation of Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential or High-Density Housing. The Oceana Hotel was constructed in 1957 and has been continuously operated as a hotel at this location since 1958 in the R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.

The request to amend Article 9 of the Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 9.08, Table 9.08.020: Land Use Regulations to permit an existing hotel’s onsite restaurant in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts to open up to the public as a Limited use is consistent with the above-mentioned goals and policies provided three criteria are met and by way of a new Conditional Use Permit application. The existing 1,556 SF restaurant is a guest amenity providing meal and drinks services to hotel guests only. While expanding its services as a publicly-accessible restaurant, it will continue to provide the same services to hotel guests while allowing nearby residents to dine at the restaurant. As a known and long-standing neighborhood feature, the

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 5 restaurant will expand the local-serving uses available to the neighborhood within walk or short distance away. Finally, the subject text amendment creates a new Conditional Use Permit requirement to open an existing restaurant to the public in the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts which provides a discretionary public hearing process to review the necessity of requiring special conditions to manage and avoid potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; this is consistent with the LUCE Goal N9 which emphasizes the importance of protecting, preserving, and enhancing the WilshireMontana residential neighborhood where the subject property is located.

2. The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the hotel and its existing restaurant has been operating at this location since 1958 and among its residential neighbors without causing adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed ordinance amendment would permit an existing hotel to request to open its existing onsite restaurant to the public provided that certain criteria are met that are included to ensure that the existing use is an established feature in the neighborhood. The proposed text amendment creates a new Conditional Use Permit requirement to review the necessity of requiring special conditions to manage and avoid potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood to further safeguard the residents and protect

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 6 the integrity of the neighborhood while providing residents the opportunity to enjoy expanded goods and services in and around the neighborhood.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.08.020 is hereby amended to read as follows:

9.08.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.08.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Multi-Unit Residential Districts.

The regulations for each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 7 also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.

Single Unit Dwelling P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P P P
Multiple-Unit Structure P P P
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit
Residential P P P
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P P P
Group Residential MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P P P
Senior Group Residential P P P
Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.

Large P P P
Section 9.31.140, Family Day
Care, Large
Small P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Residential Care, General MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P P P
Section 9.31.270, Residential
Care Facilities
Residential Care, Senior L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Hospice, General MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P
Supportive Housing P P P
Transitional Housing P P P
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early Education CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 8 TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Facilities and Early Education Facilities
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Community Gardens P P P
Cultural Facilities CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated
Landmarks
Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below.

Automobile Storage Use CUP (3) CUP (3) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing L (4)/CUP L (4)/CUP –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.

General Market CUP (5) CUP (5) CUP (5)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.150, General
Markets in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.

Bed and Breakfast CUP CUP CUP
Within Designated Landmarks
only. Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – CUP
Hotels and Motels established prior
to January 1, 1995 with an existing
onsite restaurant that intends to
open to the public
L(10)/CUP L(10)/CUP
Mobile Food Truck Off-Street Venues – MUP (7) –
Section 9.31.190, Mobile Food
Truck Off-Street Venues
Personal Services, Physical Training – L (9) –
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.

General Retail Sales, Small-Scale – CUP (8) –
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.
(2) Facilities for 6 or fewer residents are permitted by right. Other facilities require approval of a Minor Use Permit. (3) Limited to automobile storage use associated with and adjacent to existing auto dealerships that were legally established before July 6, 2010, and according to the standards of Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage. (4) Auto dealership uses existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships in residential zones are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and must conform to the standards in Section

9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage. New auto dealerships and expansions of existing dealerships inconsistent with Section 9.31.070 are prohibited.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 9 TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see
Section 9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
(5) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be located at least 300 feet from another retail food and beverage services use. (6) Reserved.
(7) Mobile food truck off-street venues shall only be located on the R3A overlay parcels located between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Street along the east side of Neilson Way.
(8) Limited to bicycle and skate rental facilities along Ocean Front. Other general retail sales uses are not permitted. (9) Limited to youth-serving studios of less than 3,000 square feet offering performing arts, dance, martial arts, physical exercise, and similar types of instruction in buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes across an alley from the Downtown district subject to a passenger loading and drop-off plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director. (10) An existing hotel use in the R2 or R3 District that includes an onsite restaurant that provides meal service for hotel guests and their visitors, and has an existing Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing for the service of alcohol to guests and their visitors for onsite consumption, shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing onsite restaurant to provide meal service to the general public, and may seek to amend its existing Alcohol Conditional Use Permit, if (or when) applicable, to allow the existing hotel restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages to the general public, provided that:

1. The hotel use was established and in existence as of January 1, 1995;

2. The Alcohol Conditional Use Permit allowing the onsite service of alcoholic beverages to hotel guests and their visitors in guest rooms and in certain common areas was approved by the City prior to July 23, 2015; and

3. The hotel’s existing restaurant prepares meals from a set menu to order in an existing hotel kitchen for consumption on the premises; provides sit down meal service during restaurant operating hours for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; and the hotel’s ancillary onsite restaurant use has existed since prior to July 23, 2015.

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) 10 SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
SUSAN Y. COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: CDD-Ord-Oceana Text Amendment-2d-05.10.2022 [Revision 1] (5121 : Oceana Hotel) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance Extending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program; Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Changes to Support Santa Monica's Economic Recovery; and Adoption of Resolution Related to Fee Waivers and Reductions
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Introduce for first reading an ordinance to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program by extending the term of the pilot program through September 30, 2022.

2. Adopt a resolution to authorize the extension of fee waivers or, if applicable, reductions, through September 30, 2022 for monthly outdoor dining license fees, monthly licensing fees for businesses with permits under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, outdoor fitness fees in City Parks and the Beach, and certain temporary use permits.

3. Introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance amending and extending interim zoning regulations established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2674 (CCS) and extended by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2678 authorizing temporary use of private outdoor space for commercial activity and extending certain zoning changes necessary for continued emergency response and economic recovery.

Summary
As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City established a temporary outdoor use permit program allowing businesses to utilize public and private outdoor spaces for dining, physical fitness and other business uses. All permit and license fees were waived, including for those businesses that, prior to COVID, had entered into outdoor dining license agreements in the Santa Monica Sidewalk Dining program pursuant to

7.B
Packet Pg. 1518
2 of 9
Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.31.200. These fee waivers are due to expire on June 30, 2022.

Staff had anticipated that a permanent parklet program with guidelines and a fee schedule would be in place by June 30, 2022. Staff has engaged a consultant to evaluate a permanent parklet program that will also include a fee structure. Staff expects to return to Council on June 28, 2022 with a new program that would be adopted by ordinance and anticipated to go into effect by late summer.

Staff recommends that Council extend the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program and related fee waivers through September 30, 2022. Staff also recommends that the temporary zoning changes allowing the temporary use of private outdoor space for commercial activity and certain changes necessary for continued emergency response and economic recovery established by emergency IZO 2678 be extended through December 31, 2022. These extensions are needed to allow businesses to continue utilizing the public right-of-way and private outdoor space while staff finalizes a permanent outdoor program for both public and private spaces.

Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in sudden closures and reduction in services throughout the Santa Monica business community. To enable commerce in accordance with Health Officer orders, expanded temporary use of outdoor space for business purposes was established through emergency orders. The types of uses included:
outdoor commercial use on private property, on the sidewalk, in a parklet in the street adjacent to a sidewalk, or group exercise on private property or in the City’s designated parks and open space. To facilitate these uses prior to the emergency order expirations, City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”) as SMMC Chapter 6.40 on June 8, 2021 and adopted a resolution to waive certain fees for outdoor dining licenses and commercial fitness operators . (See Attachment B.) An Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”) was also adopted on June 8, 2021 (and extended on July 27, 2021) to extend currently allowed temporary use of private outdoor space for commercial activity that would

7.B
Packet Pg. 1519
3 of 9
otherwise end 30 days after the expiration of the County’s COVID-19 Health Officer Order, and further provided for flexibility in various zoning regulations to facilitate emergency response and further economic recovery. The extended IZO is set to expire on June 30, 2022.

On December 14, 2021, Council extended these fee waivers through June 30, 2022 for both monthly outdoor dining license fees under SMMC 9.31.200—the outdoor dining program predating COVID—and licensing fees for the Pilot Program that were otherwise set to commence on January 1, 2022. (Attachment A.) Under the current Fee Resolution, on July 1, 2022, businesses that have either permits under the Pilot Program or outdoor dining licensing agreements under SMMC 9.31.200 would have to start paying monthly permit/licensing fees. Fees are typically charged for a business, property owner, or individual exclusively using the public right-of-way. In addition, quarterly use charges for businesses with Fitness Trainer Permits are set to resume on June 30, 2022.

Extension of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program and Fee Waivers for Outdoor Licenses
The proposed ordinance (Attachment C) and resolution (Attachment D) extends the Pilot Program and related fee waivers until September 30, 2022. Extending the Pilot Program until September 30th will allow businesses and their patrons additional time to enjoy the benefits of outdoor dining, fitness, and other activities during the summer months, providing for a smoother transition into longer-term operations, and support the economic recovery efforts of our local business community and neighborhood commercial districts. Many of our small businesses are still struggling to survive and work their way out of debt (e.g., deferred rent due to landlords, Federal disaster relief loan repayments). This extended Pilot Program with fee waivers would provide substantial support to our small businesses – over 105 participating in the Pilot Program. Extending the Pilot Program through September 30, 2022, would also provide

7.B
Packet Pg. 1520
4 of 9
City staff and businesses sufficient time to transition businesses to the new parklet/sidewalk dining permit and license agreements.

Staff anticipates that a permanent parklet program with guidelines and a fee structure will be in place this summer, with fees effective October 1, 2022. To further inform this effort, staff has engaged a consultant to evaluate best practices from other cities for a permanent parklet program that will include preparation of a parklet manual and a proposed application fee and annual permit fee structure, striving to balance the City mandated requirement of cost-recovery associated with staff administrative time and lost parking revenue, with the expectation that fees will be affordable to many small businesses in order to support an equitable and inclusive economic recovery. These fees will be outlined in the proposed Fiscal Year 2022/2023 budget study session on May 24. On June 28, 2022, the recommended fees would be included as part of the budget that City Council will be asked to adopt and staff will also be presenting the proposed parklet program to Council that night with the goal of having the permanent program in place prior to the expiration of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program on September 30, 2022.

Once the parklet policy is adopted, staff will work with the Pilot Program participants who are interested in long-term outdoor operations under a permit or license agreement to start applying in July or August for the new parklet permits and/or outdoor dining license agreements so that by September 30th, they will transition to the longer-term program with confirmed costs.

Staff also recommends extending the waiver of the outdoor dining license fees under SMMC 9.31.200—the outdoor dining program predating COVID—through September 30, 2022. (See Attachment D.) Doing so will not only be consistent with the fee waivers offered for businesses with Pilot Program permits, but it will also provide staff sufficient time to transition interested businesses with a Pilot Program permit to an outdoor licensing agreement under SMMC 9.31.200.

7.B
Packet Pg. 1521
5 of 9
Extension of Outdoor Use of Private Property
Temporary Outdoor Use Permits originally authorized under the City’s emergency orders also approved the use of private property for outdoor commercial operations.

They have been a critical component of the City’s response to support businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as to allow for certain zoning changes to support emergency response and economic recovery. Currently, 87 local businesses are using a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit issued pursuant to the IZO to conduct retail, restaurant, and fitness activities on private outdoor property—surface parking lots, courtyards, and other spaces on associated privately-owned commercial property—to help offset any pandemic-related indoor use restrictions or accommodate customer preference of being outdoors. This opportunity to use outdoor space on private property serves many businesses that are not eligible or not able to have a parklet in front of their business, particularly on commercial streets with higher traffic speeds such as Pico Boulevard and sections of Wilshire and Ocean Park Boulevards. Currently, outdoor dining is the primary activity of these private outdoor spaces. Similar to rules governing parklets for the Pilot Program, table service and alcohol sales are temporarily permitted within these spaces, and parking requirements are suspended. In developing the permanent outdoor program for private property, staff is evaluating the overall use of private outdoor space by businesses during the pandemic. Staff will continue to develop appropriate standards considering the size and location of outdoor spaces, parking and fire accessibility of the site, and noise when abutting residential districts.

To allow businesses to continue to operate on private property, staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance, which will extend this program through December 31, 2022 (Attachment E). On a separate review path from the parklet program, staff will return to Council in the fall with a proposed outdoor use program specific to privately-owned property requiring amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would enable such program.

7.B
Packet Pg. 1522
6 of 9
Extension of Zoning and Land Use Related Changes
There are a range of zoning and land use related changes that were made throughout the pandemic to facilitate emergency response and to also support local businesses.

Changes that are recommended to continue through the IZO extension (Attachments D and E) include:
▪ Permitted Use in all Zoning Districts: Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Shelters.

Allowing these uses provides flexibility in establishing uses related to health and safety supportive of emergency response and the pandemic recovery. ▪ Drive-through facilities only for COVID-19 testing and vaccination purposes at hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies.

The Zoning Ordinance prohibits new drive-through facilities. This special exception is necessary as requests to establish testing and vaccination sites remain ongoing and some level of demand is anticipated to continue. Many of these facilities are established within tented parking spaces where tests or vaccinations are administered while patients remain in their vehicles.
▪ Temporary Use Permits for uses permitted pursuant to 9.31.370(b) of more than 45 days and not exceeding 180 days (6 months).

Extending the temporary use permit period up to 180 days provides flexibility for outdoor temporary uses supportive of economic recovery efforts and consistent with social distancing practices during the pandemic recovery along with the associated permit fee waivers through September 30, 2022.
▪ Off-site alcohol sales for restaurants, consistent with the State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) requirements:

SB 389, which took effect on January 1, 2022, extended the authorization under the First Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the California Department of

7.B
Packet Pg. 1523
7 of 9
Alcoholic Beverage Control that expired on December 31, 2021 to allow the expansion of off-sale privileges for restaurants and breweries as a result of the Pandemic. This provision recognizes this expansion of alcoholic beverages “togo” as allowed by the State and allows such privileges for restaurants, breweries, etc. consistent with ABC requirements to continue through December 31, 2022.

The Notice of Regulatory Relief authorizing flexibility in retail sales of alcoholic beverages expired as of December 31, 2021. Staff proposes removing provisions in the interim zoning regulations allowing for flexibility in retail sales since that flexibility is no longer authorized by the State.

Extension of Fee Reduction or Waiver for Commercial Fitness Trainers The permitting of fitness and recreation training in City parks and the beach was also extended through updates to the existing Fitness Trainer Permit program, as authorized by SMMC 4.55.030. On June 8, 2021, Council adopted Resolution No. 11339, which, among other things, waived or reduced the quarterly use charges for businesses with Fitness Trainer Permits through June 30, 2022. (Attachment B.) Outdoor fitness classes in City parks and on the beach have maximized a fitness studio’s or an instructor’s ability to provide recreational training or wellness offerings to groups of people at a safe distance. Additionally, there has been an increase to group sizes at Barnard Way-Linear Park and Tongva Park as well as new locations added at Ken Genser Square, Airport Park parking lot, and Memorial Park, as authorized under SMMC 4.55.030. As of March 2022, a total of 22 commercial fitness trainers have obtained a permit to provide instruction in Santa Monica’s parks and beaches. Staff recommends extending the waiver and reduction of the quarterly use fees through September 30, 2022 in order to help support our fitness businesses and their economic recovery. (Attachment D.) The fee waivers or reductions for the Fitness Trainer Program are otherwise due to expire on June 30, 2022.

7.B
Packet Pg. 1524
8 of 9
Staff will analyze the Fitness Trainer Permit program and its current fee structure and will return to Council with a recommendation of new fees that, if approved, would begin October 1, 2022.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
12/14/21
(Attachment A)
Adoption of Fee Resolutions to Extend Santa Monica Outdoors Fee Waiver
06/08/21
(Attachment B)
Resolution Waiving Certain Fees on a Temporary Basis to Further Stimulate Economic Recovery, Establishing Fees for Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, and Authorizing the Community
Development Director to Temporarily Close Portions of Main Street for the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program.

Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2674 (CCS) to extend temporary uses of private outdoor space for commercial activity and extend certain zoning changes necessary for continued emergency response and economic recovery (and as extended by IZO 2678 (CCS) on 07/27/21.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The financial impact of extending the waiver of fees will result in an estimated $157,479 reduction in Outdoor Dining revenues and a $8,100 reduction in Beach & Park Fitness permit fee revenues for the first three months of FY 2022-23. However, the revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year that will be generated as a result of the proposed permanent Santa Monica Outdoors Program is still unknown. The temporary Santa Monica Outdoors programs were developed as a crisis response, so it is not certain how many of the Pilot Program businesses will opt to retain their outdoor operations, how much space businesses will want to utilize once fees are charged, or how many new permit applications will be received once the permanent programs are in place.

Additionally, staff anticipates returning to Council on June 28, 2022 with recommendations for a permanent parklet program, including a fee structure that will go into effect on October 1, 2022. Once the permanent Santa Monica Outdoor program is implemented and applications are processed, in early FY 2022-23, revenues can be projected, and necessary budget adjustments will be included in the FY 2022-23

7.B
Packet Pg. 1525
9 of 9
Midyear Budget. Staff will set aside as much Economic Recovery funds as possible to fill any gaps in revenue that the City is not able to recover once the fees are in place.

Prepared By: Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Adminstrator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 2021.12.14 Council.Report
B. 2021.06.08 Council Report
C. Proposed Ordinance Extending Term of Pilot Program
D. Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions E. Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
F. Written Comments
G. PowerPoint Presentation

7.B
Packet Pg. 1526
1 City Council Meeting: June 8, 2021 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. 11339 ( CCS)
City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA WAIVING CERTAIN FEES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS TO

FURTHER STIMULATE ECONOMIC RECOVERY , ESTABLISHING

FEES FOR SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS PILOT PROGRAM, AND

AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO

TEMPORARILY CLOSE PORTIONS OF MAIN STREET FOR THE

SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the novel coronavirus 19 (“COVID- 19”) disease is caused by a virus that spreads easily from person to person and may result in serious illness or death, and is classified by the World Health Organization (“ WHO”) as a worldwide pandemic; and
WHEREAS, COVID- 19 has broadly spread throughout California and, in the absence of herd immunity achieved through vaccinations, presents a significant health risk to the community, especially members of our most vulnerable populations; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective City response to the COVID- 19 pandemic, and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements ( the “Executive Order”); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued an enhanced Health Officer Order, the Safer at Home Order for Control of DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 2 COVID- 19, amending and superseding its earlier March 16, 2020 Order, closing all nonessential businesses, and limiting gatherings to 9 people or less; and WHEREAS, since March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has on multiple occasions amended and modified its Health Officer Order, and as part of these amendments and modifications, nonessential businesses, including restaurants, lower-risk retail businesses, and gym and fitness establishments were subject to, at various times, prohibitions on operating indoors or restrictions on capacity; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Ninth Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Ninth Supplement”), which, among other things, suspended outdoor dining license payments for City licensees for the month of April 2020; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued an Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order, which, among other things, extended the suspension of outdoor dining license payments for City licensees through June 2020 and authorized temporary outdoor dining extensions to adjacent sidewalk and/or adjacent parking, courtyard, or other private open space owned by the restaurant; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Second Revised Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order that modified the First Revised Eighteenth Supplement to, among other things: extend the suspension of outdoor dining license payments for City licensees through August 2020 and expand the public outdoor spaces where certain eligible restaurants were authorized to operate outdoors; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 3 WHEREAS, the Second Revised Eighteenth Supplement also authorized Business Improvement Districts and individual eligible businesses that have obtained a temporary use permit to conduct sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales without otherwise complying with the provisions of the Executive Order and waived processing fees for such temporary use permits; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement”), which, among other things, superseded and replaced the prior versions of the Eighteenth Supplement to further extend the suspension of outdoor dining license payments for City licensees and authorize the City to assess a monthly fee for the use of space in the public right-of-way after November 1, 2020, with 30 days’ notice provided to businesses; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Twenty- Sixth Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Twenty- Sixth Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized the Director of the Community Services Department to promulgate regulations and issue permits for gym and fitness establishments to engage in commercial fitness activities at City parks, City park parking lots, and City beaches; provided that, for any quarter or portion thereof during which the County’ s Health Officer Order prohibited gym and fitness establishments from operating indoors at an occupancy rate greater than 50%, gym and fitness establishments are not required to pay the quarterly use charges, as set forth in forth in Resolution No. 11263 ( CCS), adopted by the City Council on June 23, 2020, except for gym and fitness establishment operating at Palisades Park; and specified the rates for such quarterly use; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 4 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Twenty- Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Twenty- Seventh Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized the Director of the Community Development Department to issue regulations regarding and issue temporary use permits for certain uses allowed by the County Safer at Home Order, including temporary outdoor sales and special events, for a period longer than 45 days but less than 180 days and waived processing fees for such temporary use permits; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Twenty- Eighth Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Twenty- Eighth Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized the Director of the Community Development Department to issue permits for and regulations regarding the temporary extension by certain eligible businesses of their operations into unused portions of the parking lane on Main Street where the City has placed K-rails, and authorized the City to assess a monthly fee for the use of such space in the public right-of-way after March 31, 2021, with 30 days’ notice provided to businesses; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Thirty- Third Supplement to the Executive Order (“ Thirty-Third Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized satellite outdoor dining in portions of the roadway in the Third Street Promenade pursuant to limitations set out in the supplement and regulations to be issued by the Director of the Community Development Department, and authorized the City to assess a monthly fee for the use of such space in the public right-of-way after March 1, 2021, with 30 days’ notice provided to businesses; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 5 WHEREAS, on March 19, April 6, April 14, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, July 28, September 8, October 27, and December 15, 2020 as well as on January 26, March 23, and effective May 22, 2021, the City Council ratified the Executive Order, as well as the supplements to the Executive Order in place at the time, including the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty- Sixth, Twenty- Seventh, Twenty- Eighth, and Thirty- Third Supplements; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the restrictions imposed by the State’ s COVID- 19- related guidance and the County’ s Health Officer Order, businesses, and particularly restaurants, have suffered significant economic hardships; for example, according to Santa Monica’ s fourth quarter sales tax report from 2020, restaurants are down 50-66% in sales from the same quarter in 2019 just prior to COVID- 19; and WHEREAS, due to the economic hardships suffered by businesses and to stimulate economic recovery, the City has elected not to assess a monthly fee for the use of space in the public right-of-way, despite the authorization to do so in the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty- Eighth, and Thirty-Third Supplements; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.010 authorizes the imposition of charges for private use of public property; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.020 authorizes setting such charges by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200 allows outdoor dining on the public right of way as a way to enhance the pedestrian ambiance of the City; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 6 WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10586, which established the license fees for outdoor dining area licenses; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11263, which, among other things, revised certain permit and user fee charges, including the annual permit and quarterly use charges for commercial fitness and athletic instruction permits issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.55.030, and processing fees for temporary use permits; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concurrently adopting an emergency ordinance that establishes the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program and thereby extends the authorizations to use public space provided by the Third Revised Eighteenth, TwentyEighth, and Thirty-Third Supplements, authorizes the City to issue permits and enter into licensing agreements with business to use portions of the Main Street roadway that are temporarily closed to traffic and designated for outdoor dining or other business activities pursuant to administrative regulations, and, as part of that emergency ordinance, authorizes the City Council to set charges by resolution to reflect the use of public property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concurrently adopting an emergency interim zoning ordinance that extends the authorizations for issuance of temporary use permits for sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales that may operate without otherwise complying with the provisions of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, and temporary use permits that may be issued for periods of more than 45 days but less than 180 days, as provided by the Third Revised Eighteenth and Twenty- Seventh Supplements, respectively; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 7 WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21101( e) authorizes local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution to temporarily close a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction or a public officer or employee that the local authority designates by resolution, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing; and WHEREAS, the City desires to authorize the City’s Community Development Director to temporarily close a portion of Main Street, since closure is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are using the closed portion of Main Street during the temporary closing pursuant to the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program; and WHEREAS, to stimulate economic recovery, the City Council desires to delay recovering fees for use of public space pursuant to the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program until January 1, 2022 and to temporarily waive other fees.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Commencing no earlier than January 1, 2022, and following at least 30 days’ notice provided to businesses with a Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program permit, the charges for use of public property pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 are as follows:

Location Monthly License Fee
Per Square Foot
3rd Street Promenade $ 2.66
Transit Mall (Santa Monica Boulevard/ Broadway) $ 2.66
Ocean Avenue $ 2.48
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 8 Location Monthly License Fee
Per Square Foot
Montana Avenue $ 2.20
Wilshire Boulevard $ 2.12
Main Street $ 2.12
Ocean Park Boulevard $ 2.12
Pico Boulevard $ 2.12
Other Streets $ 2.12
SECTION 2. From the effective date of this resolution until December 31, 2021, the City waives the monthly license fee that restaurants are required to pay pursuant to their respective outdoor dining license agreements with the City under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200.

SECTION 3. From the effective date of this resolution until June 30, 2022, businesses with a commercial fitness or athletic instruction permit issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.55.030 are not required to pay quarterly use charges, unless the business provides commercial fitness or athletic instruction at Palisades Park in which case the quarterly use charges shall be (i) $450 per quarter for small groups ( not more than 2); $900 per quarter for medium groups ( not more than 10); and (iii) $1,350 per quarter for large groups ( not more than 15).

SECTION 4. From the effective date of this resolution until June 30, 2022, the City waives processing fees for temporary use permits for sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales that are not otherwise required to comply with the provisions of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, and for temporary use permits issued for a period longer than 45 days but less than 180 days, issued pursuant to the emergency interim zoning ordinance adopted concurrently with this resolution.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 9 SECTION 5. All fees established or waived by this resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution.

SECTION 6. If there are any conflicts between the fees adopted or waived in this resolution and fees adopted or waived by any prior resolution or fee schedule, the fees adopted or waived pursuant to this resolution shall control.

SECTION 7. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to temporarily close the portion of Main Street between Hill Street and Kinney Avenue on weekends in compliance with administrative regulations issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, because closure of this area is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are using the closed portion during the temporary closing.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GEORGE S. CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) Adopted and approved this 8th day of June 2021.

Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
I, Denise Anderson- Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 11339 ( CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 8th day of June 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Davis, De la Torre, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember McKeown
ATTEST:

Denise Anderson- Warren, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72C6D32E- 5527-4550- 842E-815497C3E1D9

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: 2021.12.14 Council.Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 8, 2021
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 25
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Santa Monica Outdoors: Extending Pandemic-Era Emergency Allowances Including Outdoor Use Permits and Interim Zoning Changes to Support Santa Monica’s Economic Recovery
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to extend currently allowed temporary uses of private outdoor space for commercial activity that would otherwise expire 30 days after the conclusion of the County’s pandemic-related emergency orders, and extend certain zoning changes necessary for continued emergency response and economic recovery.

2. Introduce and adopt an Emergency Ordinance to authorize the issuance of permits and licensing agreements as part of a one-year pilot program that expires on June 30, 2022 to allow continued uses of public property, including streets and sidewalks, for commercial activity, the authorization for which would otherwise expire 30 days after the conclusion of the County’s pandemic-related emergency orders.

3. Adopt a Fee Resolution to authorize fee waivers for outdoor dining license fees and processing fees for outdoor dining permits, authorize fee waivers and fee reductions for outdoor fitness fees in City Parks and the Beach, extend the fee waivers associated with temporary use permits, establish fees for use of public property pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 to commence no earlier than January 1, 2022, and authorizes temporary closure of portions of Main Street.

4. Adopt a Fee Resolution setting the outdoor dining license fees using the 2020 calendar year rates, effective as of January 1, 2022, with annual Consumer Price Index adjustments commencing January 1, 2023.

5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding granting Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. authority and responsibility for managing community-serving events and programming in the downtown district, with direction to return with any proposed modifications to the event ordinance determined necessary to accomplish this.

6. Receive a plan for Pilot Program closure of Main Street and direct staff to proceed with the proposed plan for closure.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 2 of 25
Summary
Temporary Outdoor Use Permits authorized under the City’s emergency orders have been a critical component of the City’s crisis response to sustain locally owned small businesses in Santa Monica during the COVID19 pandemic. These permits have facilitated the rapid transition of traditional indoor commercial activities such as dining, retail, and fitness to outdoor venues that have helped to bolster the local economy and enhance the mental and physical wellbeing of residents and visitors by providing for “Santa Monica Outdoors.” These activities include:
• Parklets on many neighborhood-serving commercial corridors, including Main Street, Montana Avenue, and throughout the Downtown, have enabled business activity when many indoor activities were prohibited. Parklets (converted on-street parking spaces) are primarily utilized by local restaurants, though there are numerous examples of retail, personal services, and fitness parklets across the city.
• Outdoor Uses on Private Property have permitted parking lots and courtyards to be repurposed for a range of uses including outdoor dining, fitness, and nail salons.

These spaces have been a lifeline to businesses who cannot accommodate or do not have access to a parklet space.
• Outdoor Dining on the Pier has allowed restaurants to serve patrons on the Pier’s parking deck and public right-of-way.
• Satellite Dining on the Third Street Promenade and Satellite Uses on Main Street has permitted use of the Promenade in a new social gathering format that was contemplated in the Promenade 3.0 process and the Main Street parking lane to maximize the availability of parklet spaces.
• Outdoor Fitness Classes in City Parks and on the Beach have maximized a studio’s or an instructor’s ability to provide recreational training or wellness offerings to groups of people at a safe distance. • Outdoor Community Events have featured drive-in movies and performances.

These events have been held on both public (airport) and private property.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 3 of 25
The Temporary Outdoor Use Permits, and associated license agreements entered into pursuant to the City’s emergency order authorizations, are set to expire 30 days after the County’s COVID-19 Health Officer Order expires. With the Governor’s announcement that California intends to fully reopen on June 15, 2021, it is anticipated that the County’s Health Officer Order may soon expire, which would trigger the termination of the Temporary Outdoor Use Permits. Should that happen, those currently using temporarily permitted outdoor spaces in the public right of way and on private property through emergency orders would no longer be able to do so. Parklets, outdoor dining on private property, outdoor dining on the Pier, satellite dining on the Third Street Promenade, and satellite space on Main Street may be extended by a Council-adopted ordinance. Outdoor fitness classes in City parks and on the Beach and outdoor events may be extended by modifications to regulations, guidelines, and permits, which do not require Council action.

Due to the widespread success of Temporary Outdoor Use Permits throughout the City’s commercial areas in supporting the economic viability of local businesses, recent survey results demonstrating overwhelming support of the residential and business communities for the continuation of these permit programs, and the recommendations of all City agencies that work within the public right of way, staff recommends that the Council adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and an Emergency Ordinance (EO) to continue these permit programs “asis” through summer 2022, when economic conditions are predicted to be more favorable. Staff anticipates returning to Council at that time with a comprehensive outdoor permit program that would include design details and guidelines, fees for use of the public right of way, and potential staffing requests to maintain and monitor a safe, high-quality outdoor experience.

In addition to the temporary outdoor uses cited above,
certain zoning changes were also enacted to support emergency response and economic recovery; staff recommends that these zoning changes also be extended through the IZO.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 4 of 25
Background
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic crisis necessitated a range of emergency-based regulatory changes to implement recovery measures and to strengthen community resilience. On March 13, 2020, the City declared the existence of a local emergency in response to COVID-19. On April 14, 2020, Council directed that a restructuring of City services be focused around health and safety, emergency response, and economic recovery. As introduced at the April 28, 2020 City Council meeting, the City implemented a multi-pronged economic recovery plan that focused on five policy areas:
• Business Retention/Reopening
• Business Process/Permitting Improvements
• Outreach/Marketing
• Community Economic Development/Local Hire
• Federal and State Resources/Funding Partnerships
From April 28 forward, the Economic Recovery Task Force (ERTF) and its five policy groups worked assiduously to implement actions and earmark over $1 million in ERTF funding to support businesses and residents that suffered economic impacts related to the pandemic health orders. These actions included modifications to the City’s regulatory framework and processes using emergency orders to provide immediate and short-term relief for our brick-and-mortar small businesses. The initial round of changes targeted common regulatory barriers that were perceived to add cost and time to the permitting process. Complementing this initial round of amendments was ongoing work to revamp permitting processes for Minor Outdoor Dining (aka “Sidewalk Dining”) and create new permit types to allow for outdoor use of public and private property in such a way that indoor businesses could expand their footprints into the public right of way and onto surface parking lots.

Discussion
The proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and Emergency Ordinance (EO) will have the effect of preserving the temporary use of outdoor

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 5 of 25
space programs, or “Santa Monica Outdoors,” as the emergency orders enabling them are due to expire. For clarity, these two related ordinances address:
• Use of the Public Right-of-Way: Programs in the public right-of-way, such as parklets and use of the sidewalk, are addressed through the Emergency Ordinance. • Use of Private Property: The Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance addresses provisions that are in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore apply mostly to private property. These include outdoor dining in parking lots or courtyards, as well as a handful of other zoning-related provisions.

The current “Santa Monica Outdoors” program as implemented through the COVID-19 emergency orders relies on modifications to City processes and regulations to create optimal conditions for economic recovery and business operations during the pandemic. These modifications include suspension of certain zoning requirements, reduction of processing times through streamlined application requirements and regulations, and waiving or suspending fees that are typically associated with issuing permits for use of public property for commercial activities. The current Santa Monica Outdoors program is proposed to be carried forward “as is” to continue to support small business recovery and to afford staff time to establish a more comprehensive and institutionalized program for the long term. The programs recommended by this report for continuation include:
• Parklets in the Public Right of Way. Currently, approximately 90 parklets are located in Santa Monica streets serving predominantly restaurants, personal services businesses (such as nail salons), and fitness businesses. Parklets are licensed for private use, meaning that they are operated and maintained by local businesses for the exclusive use of paying customers. Table service and alcohol sales are permitted within parklets in accordance with State Alcohol and Beverage Control and City emergency regulations.

There are three types of parklets currently utilized in Santa Monica:
o “Kit of Parts” Parklets that involve metal rail fencing anchored by heavy planters and landscaping. Many businesses have procured these materials on their

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 6 of 25
own. Through a $15,000 allocation from the ERTF, the City loaned 15 of these parklet kits to businesses free of charge. Additional “kit of parts” were purchased by Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., (DTSM) and distributed to businesses in the Downtown. The Montana Avenue Merchants Association further fortified the Montana Avenue parklets with the addition of water-filled barriers at the ends. o Deck and Railing Parklets that conform to the City’s standards for structures in the public right of way. Many local businesses have invested in fabricating substantial parklet designs out of wood or metal. o The Main Street Al Fresco parklets that are characterized by the use of concrete K-rails. Many businesses have created decks within this space that are level with the curb, effectively creating a wider sidewalk space for outdoor dining. The original City-built parklets that were created as a pilot in 2015 have been integrated into the Al Fresco project.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 7 of 25
• Temporary Outdoor Business Use of Private Property. Currently, approximately 70 local businesses are using a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit to conduct retail, restaurant, and fitness activities on surface parking lots, courtyards, and other private spaces to help offset the pandemic-related indoor use restrictions. This opportunity serves many businesses that are not able to have a parklet in front of their business, particularly on commercial streets such as Pico Blvd. and sections of Wilshire and Ocean Park Boulevards with higher traffic speeds. Currently, the primary activity this supports is outdoor dining. Similar to parklets, table service and alcohol sales are temporarily permitted within these spaces, and parking requirements are suspended.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 8 of 25
• Satellite Dining on the Third Street Promenade. Approximately five restaurants in the immediate vicinity of the Promenade that were limited in their ability to use parklets and/or sidewalk dining in front of their business (due to bus lane, red curb, narrow sidewalk, or other limitations) have been approved and are operating parklet-style dining in the center of the Promenade right of way. Traditional rules required outdoor dining to occur directly adjacent to its restaurant tenant space, but emergency orders have permitted restaurants to set up tables and chairs in the pedestrianized roadway, leaving the sidewalk free and clear for pedestrian activity and window shopping. • Satellite Use of Main Street Parking Lane. The closure of the Main Street parking lane has enabled Main Street businesses to continue to operate fitness, retail, and personal services over the past year. This program has been very popular with the community and businesses alike and there is tremendous interest in using more of the street for this purpose. The Main Street Satellite program allows unclaimed spaces in the parking lane to be used for permitted uses by other licensed Santa Monica businesses (other than restaurants) as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. • Expansion of Sidewalk Dining. Under the Temporary Outdoor Use Permits, existing permit holders and new operators were able to temporarily expand their sidewalk footprint for no charge and without triggering any parking requirements. • Outdoor Dining on the Pier. Restaurants are currently using the public right-ofway and Pier deck for outdoor dining. With the reopening of Pacific Park and the controlled reopening of the remainder of the Pier, continuing to allow for outdoor dining in certain sections of the Pier is important to serve customer demand and to support the survival of the Pier tenants. This will need to be balanced with upcoming capital improvement projects to the Pier deck and anticipated partial re-opening of the Pier deck to parking starting in September 2021
Fee Waivers to Support Outdoor Use Programs

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 9 of 25
To support economic recovery and encourage businesses to participate in the temporary outdoor use programs, the following fees have been waived since the launch of the program. No application fee has been assessed for businesses applying for a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit. The temporary outdoor encroachment agreement signed by all businesses participating in the program includes the following table of fees for use of public space. The fees were based on the “Outdoor Dining Without a Barrier” fees set forth in Resolution No. 10586 (CCS) adopted by City Council on June 21, 2011. The emergency orders and agreement allowed the City to begin charging fees no earlier than March 1, 2021 for satellite uses of the Third Street Promenade and Main Street and November 1, 2020 for all other expanded uses of public space only after providing 30 days written notice and if the County’s Safer at Home Order allowed the business to operate at 50% or greater indoor capacity. Due to the continued economic hardships that local businesses have faced, the fee waivers have continued.

Per the existing local emergency orders, staff can start charging for the use of public property with 30 days’ notice. Staff recommends that Council extend these fee waivers through December 2021 with fees then being charged based on the fee schedule provided in Table 1 below using the rates from calendar year 2020, after providing 30 days’ notice to allow businesses to terminate their agreements if they choose. Staff also recommends that the outdoor dining license fees for the existing licensees be waived through December 2021 and that Council adopt a new resolution setting outdoor dining license fees using the rates from calendar year 2020 with annual adjustments for Consumer Price Index commencing January 1, 2023, and each year thereafter.

Table 1:

Use of Public Space Fees in Temporary COVID-19 Outdoor Encroachment Agreement Location Monthly Charge (per square foot)
3 rd Street Promenade $2.66
Transit Mall (Santa Monica
Boulevard/Broadway)
$2.66
Ocean Avenue $2.48
Montana Avenue $2.20

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 10 of 25
Wilshire Boulevard $2.12
Main Street $2.12
Ocean Park Boulevard $2.12
Pico Boulevard $2.12
Other Streets $2.12
This extended fee waiver program reflects the economic hardships our small businesses are continuing to face, especially restaurants. According to Santa Monica’s latest quarterly sales tax report (Q4 2020), restaurants have experienced a 50- 66% decrease in sales from the same quarter in 2019 just prior to COVID. It is estimated that those businesses that are able to survive will take at least one year to recover to their pre-pandemic levels. Outdoor fitness and community wellbeing have been further supported by reduced fees at Palisades Park and waived fees at all other parks and the beach for Commercial Fitness Trainers. Staff are requesting the continuation of this program, to be assessed on a quarterly basis in accordance with LA County and State public health guidance and local demand for these services.

The following is a summary of fees that have been waived to support the outdoor use program:
• Sidewalk Dining
o Temporary Encroachment Agreement Licensing fees
o Monthly Outdoor Dining License Agreement Fees (for businesses who had approved sidewalk dining prior to COVID)
o Application fees for outdoor dining
o SMFD Special Event Permits for canopies and tents greater than 400 sf • Parklets
o Application fees
o Temporary Encroachment Agreement Licensing fees
o SMFD Special Event Permits for canopies and tents greater than 400 sf • Private Property
o Planning application fees for Temporary Use Permits
o Building permit fees waived in certain circumstances
• Sidewalk sales & seasonal sales

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 11 of 25
o Planning application fees for Temporary Use Permits
• Outdoor Fitness
o Commercial Fitness Trainer Permits in parks and beach (reduced fees at Palisades Park)
Table 2:

Santa Monica Outdoor – Estimated Value of Fee Waivers
Program Beneficiaries Estimated Value of Fee
Waivers
Temporary Sidewalk
Dining Encroachment
License Fee
40 businesses - 27,542
SF total area @
$2.12/SF/mos
$700,668*
Monthly Sidewalk Dining
license fees (permanent
program)
72 restaurants (existing
ODAs pre-COVID)
$569,000
Parklets 90 businesses - 164 meters
@ $2,600/meter (annual
average revenue per parking
meter)
$426,000*
Permit Application Fees 40 businesses @ $1,490.34
(Minor Outdoor Dining
Permit Fee)
$59,600
SM Fire Dept Event Permits 11 businesses @ $228.98 -
$824.04
$3,321
Beach + Park Fitness Permit
Waivers
32 fitness trainers @ $450-
$1,350/quarter
$14,400
Total Value
of Santa Monica Outdoors
$1.8 million/year
*This fee is based on the estimated value of these new uses.

Outdoor Programs Extended Through Other Means
Several other components of Santa Monica Outdoors are being extended through other measures that do not require an adopted ordinance or Council action. These include:
• Outdoor Fitness: the permitting of fitness and recreation training in City parks, the beach, and City-owned parking lots is being extended through updates to the existing Fitness Trainer Permit program, as authorized by SMMC

4.55.030. Specifically, staff are proposing to increase group sizes at Barnard Way Linear Park and Tongva Park as well as to add new locations at

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 12 of 25
Ken Genser Square, Airport Park parking lot, and Memorial Park, as authorized under SMMC 4.55.030.
• Outdoor Community Events: the permitting of drive-in events and allowed outdoor events is being extended through changes to the Administrative Instruction on Events and Site Guidelines, in accordance with the existing Events Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.68).

Popularity of the Santa Monica Outdoors Program –
Residents, Businesses, and City Operations
To gather feedback about the suite of temporary outdoor programs, two surveys were administered. The first, a survey for business operators, received 441 responses, while another for residents and other patrons of businesses received 5,299 responses. Comprehensive responses from each survey, including select respondentsubmitted photographs, are included in Attachment D.

Business Survey Results
To date, approximately 212 businesses have participated in the temporary use of outdoor space programs, joining the three parklets and 72 sidewalk dining locations that pre-date the pandemic. According to the business survey, businesses are overwhelmingly supportive of these programs, including those that have not expanded outdoors. Their responses challenge long-held notions about the importance of street parking in Santa Monica’s business districts to a business’s success, with 83% valuing a parklet in front of their business more than curbside parking spaces. An even greater number, 88%, think the parklet program should be extended. And 93% of business that have expanded outdoors on private property (such as in parking lots or courtyards) would like to continue to do so.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 13 of 25
Businesses are supportive of the placemaking effect that parklets have on their districts, many of which are park-once destinations where people patronize more than one establishment per visit. Approximately two-thirds of business survey respondents do not believe there should be restrictions on the number of parklets per block and only 20% state that they would be opposed to a neighbor’s parklet in front of or near their storefront. Similarly, businesses are supportive of the permissive regulations that guide the day-to-day administration of the program. Fees have been waived to support small businesses during this challenging period and 58% support continuing to waive these fees until at least January 1, 2022. Charging fees at this juncture would have a chilling effect on participation, as only 40% of businesses stated that they would continue to operate a parklet if fees are charged. Further, 98% believe that restaurants and cafés should be allowed to serve food and drink (including alcoholic beverages) to customers in parklets, in contrast to prior rules that prohibited this activity at the three parklets established under the pilot program on Main Street.

Overall, parklet operators are grateful for the opportunities afforded by the program. Nine out of ten respondents credit their parklet with keeping their doors open through the pandemic, benefitting the community with essential goods and services, while also keeping community members employed. And now, with months of

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 14 of 25
experience, 85% view the parklets as integral to both their businesses’ operations and identity.

Residents and Visitors Survey Results
According to the resident survey, the community is also heavily invested in the future of these programs, with 5,299 people taking the time to provide input. This sizable cohort is clear about their overwhelming support of these programs and desire to see them become permanent fixtures of the Santa Monica landscape. When asked to choose between outdoor business operations on private property and restoring parking spaces, 96% of respondents selected to allow outdoor operations to continue. A similar 92% think the parklet program should be extended, with 90% affirming that parklets provide a positive benefit to the Santa Monica community.

When asked to rate their experiences on a five-star scale, with 5 being the best, parklet visitors gave an average score of 4.6 stars, while private property expansion patrons (parking lot diners) gave a slightly higher average of 4.7 stars.

Three out of four respondents feel that parklets are a worthwhile use of limited public curbside parking. Patrons were also asked to select the various modes of

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 15 of 25
transportation they used to access parklets, and more people walk to parklets (65%) than drive (62%).

These programs have served as economic development opportunities for businesses and have assuaged public health concerns for patrons, allowing them to feel comfortable emerging from Safer at Home Orders to access essential goods and services. A staggering 92% state that they are more likely to patronize a business because it has a parklet, and 95% of patrons feel safe when in a parklet.

Similarly, 95% are more likely to patronize a business that has expanded outdoors on private property into parking lots and courtyards.

City Staff and Public Safety Perspective on Outdoor Uses The creation of the temporary Santa Monica Outdoors program was coordinated with a range of City staff who have formed the ERTF Business Re-Opening Team and have a deep breadth of experience with varying roles servicing the public right of way. The programs were drafted and designed by staff in Planning, Mobility, Economic Development, Public Works, and the City Attorney’s Office. Throughout the implementation of the parklet program, private outdoor dining, and other outdoor activities mentioned in this report, staff from Fire, Police, Big Blue Bus, Street Services, Urban Forest, Parking, and Code Enforcement have also worked collaboratively to design solutions and monitor performance, including limited enforcement activities.

Staff from these divisions continue to remain supportive of the Santa Monica Outdoors program and cite very few concerns related to the proposed continuation of these activities “as is.” Issues that will require deeper coordination as a more formalized program is developed for the summer of 2022 include:
• Street cleaning and collection activities around outdoor dining activations • Tree canopy management in new parklet areas
• Design and engineering of parklet “templates” that institutionalize a range of uniform criteria related to Public Safety and Public Works standards, including the ability for the City to remove a parklet to conduct road or utility repairs

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 16 of 25
• Educational materials for parklet operators about “do’s and don’ts,” design standards and operational requirements
• Analysis and
policy development for a City curb space management program to address the appropriate balance of parking, loading zones, number of parklets, etc.

Related Efforts: Summer Weekend Closure Plan for Main Street On April 27, 2021, Council directed staff, as part of economic recovery efforts, to consider the proposals of the Main Street Business Improvement Association (MSBIA) and the Ocean Park Association (OPA) and return to Council with a plan to implement a pilot program for temporary summer weekend closure of all or part of Main Street to automobiles and bus traffic, as well as to assess the pilot’s traffic impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Staff has been working with internal and external stakeholders to develop a pilot program and returns now to Council to seek approval to implement the following pilot program plan.

Staff recommends closure of the roughly 1,000 feet between Hill Street and Kinney Avenue and is drafting a Temporary Traffic Control Plan to that effect. This differs slightly from what MSBIA and OPA requested, which sought closure of two short segments -- between Hill Street and north of Ashland Avenue as well as between Ashland Avenue and Kinney Street. As proposed by staff, the plan includes considerations of bikes and buses as well as passenger vehicles. Due to the potential disruption to bus ridership on weekdays, and the potentially inequitable impact of closures on transit-dependent riders, the closure would be limited to weekends (Saturday-Sunday). The exact hours would be part of the traffic control plan process.

Currently, three to four weekend closures are being contemplated and would be held once per month. MSBIA and OPA recommend starting in July. Staff is working toward implementing quickly, but final dates will be subject to the availability of traffic control services, as well as business and community input.

To assess event transportation impacts, staff has drafted a data collection plan that includes:

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 17 of 25
• vehicle volume counts on segments of 2
nd and 3rd Streets south of Ocean Park
Boulevard,
• multimodal volume counts on Main Street and Neilson Way (including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians), and
• on-street parking occupancy for 2nd and 3rd Streets south of Ocean Park Boulevard.

These data would be collected in late June as a baseline for “business as usual” and then during the first event weekend for comparison. Staff is getting cost estimates from vendors and is currently reducing scope to reduce costs. In addition, staff will use existing data sources on bus ridership and parking meter and lot utilization. Staff will work with MSBIA/OPA regarding any intercept or public perception surveying to be done.

As part of their request, MSBIA/OPA have committed to leading the outreach process and engaging their membership to assist in tasks leading up to and during the event. Staff has provided MSBIA/OPA with a summary of past outreach efforts to assist in their development of an outreach strategy. They are in the process of identifying which tasks can be achieved with the time and resources available.

The City has a total of approximately $70,000 available for all the Main Street pilot closures sourced from the Metro grant for the 2020 COAST open streets event, which could not occur due to the pandemic. Metro has allowed for repurposing of funds to this and other Art of Recovery projects. If event costs exceed the available $70,000, including event public safety staffing, the event partners will need to scale back the event or seek other strategies and funding sources.

To enable businesses to operate on the portions of Main Street roadway that are subject to temporary closure, staff recommends that Council adopt the Emergency Ordinance, which, in addition to extending the authorization in the emergency order supplements to use the public space, also authorizes the Director of the Community Development Department or designee to issue permits to and enter into licensing

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 18 of 25
agreements with eligible businesses for use of the Main Street closure area. The portions of the roadway that are unoccupied by businesses will be considered a common area and the City will bear the risk of liability for any injuries that may occur there. The businesses that have obtained a permit and licensing agreement to use the Main Street closure area will be required to maintain insurance as set forth in the Emergency Ordinance, similar to the requirements for use of other public space under the Santa Monica Outdoors program.

MSBIA and OPA have expressed concern to staff that requiring businesses to engage in a process to obtain a permit for a short-term, temporary pilot program may discourage businesses from participating in the program. Staff recognizes that concern and are working to streamline the application and permitting process so that it will be as seamless as possible. However, this type of process—the issuance of a permit, a hold harmless agreement, and requirement to maintain insurance—is typical for use of public space, including, for example, community event permits under SMMC Chapter 4.68, outdoor dining licenses under SMMC Section 9.31.200, shared mobility devices under SMMC Chapter 3.22, and commercial fitness instruction under SMMC Section 4.55.030.

Because such a process minimizes the City’s exposure to liability for use of public space arising out of private or commercial activity, the City Attorney’s Office recommends that Council require an application and permitting process, including the submission of insurance information, as proposed in the Emergency Ordinance.

Finally, staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution (attachment C) that authorizes temporary closure of Main Street to comply with Vehicle Code Section 21101, which requires a resolution or ordinance to temporarily close streets if it is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

Related Efforts Part 2 – Supporting Community-Serving Events in Downtown Santa Monica
As part of economic recovery efforts, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) is seeking authority from the City to advance community-serving events, programing, and arts activations in key public spaces downtown (including the Third Street

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 19 of 25
Promenade and other City-owned locations), which will stimulate pedestrian activity in and increase visitors to the downtown district. Staff are seeking Council authorization to negotiate and enter into a MOU which will give DTSM the ability to quickly program more community-serving events and minimize impact on City staff.

As the plan develops, staff will return to seek any amendments to the events ordinance that may be necessary to accomplish this.

Both DTSM and MSSBIA have proposed temporary street closure pilot programs to support the expansion of “Santa Monica Outdoors” activations in our commercial districts. To support these efforts, staff is working on updating the Community Events Permit process and administrative instructions to allow for temporary street closures in Santa Monica’s commercial districts to help support the safe re-opening of our local businesses and promoting community-service activations in our commercial districts .

These partnership events would be authorized through a MOU and community event permits. They would also necessitate staff-approved Temporary Traffic Control Plans.

Other Zoning and Land Use Related Changes that are Recommended to be Continued There are a range of other zoning and land use related changes that were made throughout the pandemic to facilitate emergency response and also support local businesses. Changes that are recommended to continue through the IZO and fee resolution are summarized below.

Changes Recommended to continue through the IZO:
• Temporary Permitted Use in all Zoning Districts: Public safety facilities and emergency shelters
o Purpose: Provides flexibility in establishing uses related to health and safety supportive of emergency response and the pandemic recovery. • Temporary drive-through facilities for hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies, only for COVID-19 testing and vaccination
o Purpose: The Zoning Ordinance prohibits new drive-through facilities. This special exception is necessary as requests to establish testing and

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 20 of 25
vaccination sites remain ongoing. Many of these facilities are established within tented parking spaces where tests or vaccinations are administered while patients remain in their vehicles.

• Temporary use permits for sidewalk sales and seasonal sales that do not need to comply with Santa Monica Outdoors pilot program and for uses permitted pursuant to

9.31.370(B) of more than 45 days and not exceeding 180 days (6 months) - o Purpose: Provides flexibility for outdoor temporary uses supportive of economic recovery efforts and consistent with social distancing practices during the pandemic recovery.
o
• Off-site alcohol sales for restaurants and retail alcohol sales for retail establishments, consistent with the State Alcoholic Beverage Control’s (ABC) temporary relief measures.
o Purpose: This provision provides restaurants and retailers that sell alcoholic beverages greater flexibility to provide off-site sales during this recovery period, consistent with ABC’s temporary relief measures.

Changes Recommended to be Continued Through Fee Resolution • Planning application fees waived for Temporary Use Permits issued pursuant to the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
o Purpose: Extending the waiver of temporary use permit application fees would maintain consistency with the Temporary Outdoor Use Program and, as proposed, would continue through the term of the emergency interim zoning ordinance.

Environmental Analysis
The proposed IZO and EO to continue certain emergency provisions including temporary outdoor use of public right-of-way, zoning changes, and procedural changes to aid in economic recovery are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 21 of 25
record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposal would not result in adverse physical environmental effects since such uses are compatible with surrounding commercial uses, would not create hazards or adverse health effects to any sensitive residential uses, and are permitted land uses in the Zoning Ordinance or have been permitted in many areas of the City for over a year. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

In addition, the pilot program to close Main Street on summer weekends is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Implementation Guidelines. The proposed pilot program would be a temporary closure of all or part of Main Street for bicycle and pedestrian use. This is a temporary and minor alteration to the street in favor of bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Coastal Act
In May 2020, the City submitted a coastal development permit waiver request to the Coastal Commission detailing actions undertaken in response to County and State health officer orders, which was granted by the Commission shortly thereafter. At that time, Coastal Commission staff advised that the City need only to report additional temporary measures undertaken in response to health officer orders to the Coastal Commission. Since that time, City staff has remained in contact with Coastal Commission staff to report temporary measures undertaken, including those that implemented the use of public and private outdoor spaces authorized by the Executive Order. The temporary uses that are proposed to be continued by the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot program and the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance are consistent with current permitted uses and will not result in installation of any permanent structures. Should Council adopt the Emergency Ordinance and Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance, City staff will report the extension of these temporary uses to Coastal Commission staff in accordance with the Coastal Commission’s prior directive.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 22 of 25
Next Steps After Extension of Santa Monica Outdoors
A broader policy for the parklet program will be recommended to Council at a later date, including permits and fees that would need to be put in place at minimum to cover staff administration costs and to help offset any loss in parking revenue, where needed. In the meantime, the proliferation of outdoor dining activity will help to generate muchneeded sales tax revenue. Restaurants generated an estimated $7 million in sales tax revenue for the City of Santa Monica last year. Allowing our businesses to quickly pivot and use the outdoors has resulted in the most significant business retention measures under the City’s Economic Recovery efforts. Continued use of this space will help these struggling businesses survive and further increase sales tax revenue needed to fund our essential City services and schools. The gradual phasing in of outdoor dining fees will help to generate additional revenue for the City once our businesses have been able to safely resume full indoor operations and survive.

Over the course of the following fiscal year, ERTF Business Reopening staff will work collaboratively with City divisions to develop standards and regulations for the permanent incorporation of Santa Monica Outdoors into the municipal framework. This work will include authoring a comprehensive program that is inclusive of design standards and guidelines, processes for application review and monitoring of outdoor spaces, fees for use of public right of way, and staffing assignments or budget requests for the review, permitting and performance inspection of all spaces authorized under the program and funded using new program revenues. Requests for enhanced staffing levels to administer the program would be addressed during the mid-year or exceptionbased budget process. Outreach to businesses will be a critical component of balancing economic development interests with the safety and maintenance of our public and private commercial activities.

ERTF staff envisions returning to Council at a mid-way point in the program development for guidance on key policy areas that arise and report on progress. Staff may also consult with a variety of Boards and Commissions who have province over the public right of way, design of private commercial buildings and spaces, and zoning.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 23 of 25
Past Council Actions
In response to the declaration of an emergency and subsequent restrictions on business activity, the City enacted several Emergency Orders that were ratified by Council. The Emergency Orders relevant to this staff report are shown in the table below.

Issue Date Description
3/17/20 (Attachment E) Fourth Revised Supplement – public safety facilities, hospitals and clinics, and emergency shelters permitted use in all zoning district; drive-through facilities for restaurants permitted use; drive-through facilities for clinics, convenience markets, farmers markets, general markets, hospitals, and pharmacies permitted use
3/21/20,
modified
12/8/20 (Attachment F)
Seventh Supplement, as superseded and revised by Thirtieth Supplement – Off-site and retail alcohol sales
4/24/20 (Attachment G) Twelfth Supplement – stays longer than 30 days permitted in hotels/motels
8/18/20 (Attachment H) Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement – temporary outdoor uses; extension of deadlines for planning, review, and permitrelated actions 9/18/20 (Attachment I) Twenty-Sixth Supplement – permit use of City sites for drive-in movie theaters and other entertainment events; permit gyms and fitness in City parks, beaches, and park parking lots 10/7/20 (Attachment J) Twenty-Seventh Supplement – temporary use permits to allow events up to 180 days
11/24/20 (Attachment
K)
Twenty-Eighth Supplement – satellite use of Main Street parking lane; waive permit fees for tents larger than
400sf being used for temporary outdoor uses with permits filed with SMFD; temporary water suspension of commercial water service at request of owners; clarification regarding extension of deadlines for planning, review, and permit-related actions. 1/28/21 (Attachment L) Thirty-Third Supplement – satellite outdoor dining extension for Third Street Promenade
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The financial impact of these actions will result in continued reduction in City revenues which are being offset by the Federal stimulus funds. Because many of the temporary Santa Monica Outdoors programs were developed as a crisis response,

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 24 of 25
no existing fees are in place against which to judge revenue loss. Table 2 (above) lists the $1.8 million in value of “Santa Monica Outdoors” to the businesses and does not reflect the actual decreased revenue to the City as many of the programs authorized under the emergency orders are new programs that did not exist prior to COVID (e.g. private parklets). The only existing fee that is subject to an impact analysis is the extended waiver of pre-pandemic outdoor dining monthly licenses, which amounts to a loss of approximately $569,000 per year and is projected to generate similar revenues again in the Bi-annual Budget forecasts in FY21/22 and FY 22/23. Any reduction in fees in FY21/22 would be offset by the ARPA Federal Stimulus funds in the form of a grant to the General Fund to help cover extended small business outdoor dining fee waivers.

Staff has also budgeted for 50% reduction in revenue for the next fiscal year in anticipation of the Commercial Fitness Permit fee waivers. To minimize future losses in parking revenue tied to “Santa Monica Outdoors,” staff are recommending the Pier parking deck re-open by September 1, 2021 to generate much-needed revenue for the Pier. The Pier restaurants have designated outdoor dining areas that will not be impacted by the parking deck re-opening. Citywide, parking revenues vary seasonally, but the current budget includes a 10-month revenue total estimate of $1.18M (average of $118K per month). For the Downtown and Main Street districts, the loss in on-street metered parking during COVID has been offset by parking revenue generated from the public parking lots and structures.

Attachments
A. Proposed Emergency Ordinance
B. Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
C. Fee Resolution Waiving Certain Fees on a Temporary Basis, Establishing Fees for Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, and Authorizing Temporary Closure of Portions of Main Street
D. Santa Monica Outdoors Survey Results
E. Fourth Revised Supplement (weblink)
F. Seventh Supplement (weblink)

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 25 of 25
G. Twelfth Supplement (weblink)
H. Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement (weblink)
I. Twenty-Sixth Supplement (weblink)
J. Twenty-Seventh Supplement (weblink)
K. Twenty-Eighth Supplement (weblink)
L. Thirty-Third Supplement (weblink)
M. Fee Resolution Establishing Fees for Outdoor Dining Area Licenses Prepared By: Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Adminstrator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Exhibit A: Proposed Emergency Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 6.40) B. Exhibit B: Life Outdoors IZO
C. Exhibit C: Resolution Waiving and Establishig Certain Fees and Authorizing Temp. Closure of Main St
D. Exhibit D: Survey Results & Select Respondent-submitted Photos E. Exhibit E: Fourth Revised Supplement
F. Exhibit F: Seventh Supplement
G. Exhibit G: Twelth Supplement
H. Exhibit H: Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement
I. Exhibit I: Twenty-Sixth Supplement
J. Exhibit J: Twenty-Seventh Supplement
K. Exhibit K: Twenty-Eighth Supplement
L. Exhibit L: 33rd Supplemental Order
M. Exhibit M: Fee Resolution Establishing Fees for Outdoor Dining Area Licenses N. Written Comments

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: 2021.06.08 Council Report (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 1 City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ___________(CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 6.40.050 TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE

SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 2673, establishing Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, which implemented the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program and continued the authorization originally provided in the City’s supplements to its declaration of the existence of a local emergency for eligible businesses temporarily to use certain outdoor public property for dining and other business activities; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program is set to expire on June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, staff is in the process of working on a permanent parklet program and anticipates returning to Council on June 28, 2022 with a new program to replace the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program that would be adopted by ordinance and go into effect by late summer 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, extending the term of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program to September 30, 2022 will facilitate business recovery, generate increased sales tax

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Extending Term of Pilot Program (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 2 revenue for the City, and provide City staff the time necessary to develop and bring to Council a permanent parklet program as well as transition interested businesses to, as applicable, the new parklet program or a sidewalk dining permit and license agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.40.050, Pilot program term, is hereby amended to read as follows:

6.40.050 Pilot program term.

Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall terminate and be of no further force or effect beyond September June 30, 2022, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City at its discretion and consistent with any noticing requirements set forth in the administrative regulations or the licensing agreement between the City and the eligible business.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Extending Term of Pilot Program (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 3 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
SUSAN Y. COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Extending Term of Pilot Program (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 1 City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO.
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA EXTENDING THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN FEES ON A

TEMPORARY BASIS TO FURTHER STIMULATE ECONOMIC

RECOVERY
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 2673, establishing Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, which implemented the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program through June 30, 2022, continued the authorization provided in the City’s supplements to its declaration of the existence of a local emergency for eligible businesses temporarily to use certain outdoor public property for dining and other business activities, and authorized the City Council to set charges by resolution to reflect the use of the outdoor public property; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200 allows outdoor dining on the public right of way as a way to enhance the pedestrian ambiance of the City; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.010 authorizes the imposition of charges for private use of public property; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.72.020 authorizes setting such charges by resolution; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11339, which, among other things, (1) waived until December 31, 2021 the monthly license fee

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 2 that restaurants are required to pay pursuant to their respective outdoor dining license agreements with the City under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200 and (2) established fees for the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program that are to commence no earlier than January 1, 2022 and following at least 30 days’ notice provided to eligible businesses with a Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program permit; (3) waived the quarterly use charges for businesses with a commercial fitness or athletic instruction permit issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code through June 30, 2022, except that such businesses operating in Palisades Park were required to pay a reduced quarterly rate; and (4) waived until June 30, 2022 processing fees for certain temporary use permits issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.370; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11340, which re-set the outdoor dining licensing fee for licenses issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.31.200 so that the rate in 2022 shall be the same as the rate in 2020, and that annually thereafter, commencing on January 1, 2023, such fees shall be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11392, which, through June 30, 2022, waived (1) the monthly license fee that restaurants are required to pay pursuant to their respective outdoor dining license agreements with the City under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200 and (2) the monthly license fee that eligible businesses with a Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program permit are required to pay for the use of public property pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40; and

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 3 WHEREAS, concurrent with this Resolution, City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance that would extend the term of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program until September 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, businesses, and particularly restaurants, have suffered significant economic hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat of new variants and potential surges in the future continues to create much uncertainty in terms of economic recovery; and
WHEREAS, to stimulate economic recovery, the City Council desires, until September 30, 2022, to waive the monthly license fees that restaurants are required to pay pursuant to their respective outdoor dining license agreements and the monthly license fee for use of outdoor public property pursuant to the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program; to waive the processing fees for certain temporary use permits issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.370; and to waive or reduce the quarterly use charges for businesses with a commercial fitness or athletic instruction permit issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. From the effective date of this resolution until September 30, 2022, the City waives the monthly license fee that restaurants are required to pay pursuant to their respective outdoor dining license agreements with the City under Santa Monica

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 4 Municipal Code Section 9.31.200. Thereafter, restaurants shall resume paying their respective monthly outdoor licensing fees according to the fees established by Resolution No. 11340, or any amendments or successors thereto.

SECTION 2. From the effective date of this resolution until September 30, 2022, the City waives the monthly license fee to eligible businesses with a Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program permit for the use of public property pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40.

SECTION 3. From the effective date of this resolution until September 30, 2022, businesses with a commercial fitness or athletic instruction permit issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.55.030 are not required to pay quarterly use charges, unless the business provides commercial fitness or athletic instruction at Palisades Park in which case the quarterly use charges shall be (a) $450 per quarter for small groups (not more than 2); $900 per quarter for medium groups (not more than 10); and (b) $1,350 per quarter for large groups (not more than 15).

SECTION 4. From the effective date of this resolution until September 30, 2022, the City waives processing fees for temporary use permits for sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales that are not otherwise required to comply with the provisions of the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, and for temporary use permits issued for a period longer than 45 days but less than 180 days, issued pursuant to the emergency interim zoning ordinance adopted concurrently with this resolution that extends and amends interim zoning regulations set forth in Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2678 (CCS).

SECTION 5. The waiver of fees by this resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution.

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 5 SECTION 6. If there are any conflicts between the fees waived in this resolution and fees waived by any prior resolution, the waiver of fees pursuant to this resolution shall control.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
SUSAN Y. COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Extending Certain Fee Waivers/Reductions (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 1 City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER_________(CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING AND EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING

REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2674 (CCS) AND EXTENDED BY EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 2678 (CCS) AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY USE OF PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE; TEMPORARY PERMITTED USES FOR
EMERGENCY SHELTERS, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, AND DRIVETHROUGH FACILITIES FOR COVID-19 TESTING AND VACCINATION PURPOSES; AND FLEXIBILITY IN ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY USE PERMITS

AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES
WHEREAS, the novel coronavirus 19 (“COVID-19”) disease is caused by a virus that spreads easily from person to person and may result in serious illness or death, and is classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a worldwide pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter

2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective City response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (the “Executive Order”); and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Revised Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order (“Revised Fourth Supplement”), which among other things, permitted public safety facilities, hospitals, clinics, and

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 2 emergency shelters in all zoning districts and allowed the Director of the Community Development Department or designee to waive development standards, design review, parking and access requirements, and sign standards related to such uses, and allowed drive-through facilities for clinics, convenience markets, farmers markets, general markets, hospitals, pharmacies, and restaurants; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued an enhanced Health Officer Order, the Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19, amending and superseding its earlier March 16, 2020 Order, closing all nonessential businesses, and limiting gatherings to 9 people or less; and WHEREAS, since March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has on multiple occasions amended and modified its Health Officer Order, and as part of these amendments and modifications, nonessential businesses, including restaurants, lower-risk retail businesses, and gym and fitness establishments were subject to, at various times, prohibitions on operating indoors or restrictions on capacity; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order aligning the Santa Monica Municipal Code with a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) “Notice of Regulatory Relief” permitting restaurants and retailers holding valid ABC licenses to sell alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption via delivery and take-out; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued an Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order, which, among other things, authorized

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 3 temporary outdoor dining extensions to adjacent sidewalk and/or adjacent parking, courtyard, or other private open space owned by the restaurant; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Second Revised Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order that modified the First Revised Eighteenth Supplement to, among other things: extend the authorization for temporary dining to adjacent private spaces not owned by the restaurant and to sidewalks in front of adjacent buildings with the consent of either the owner or tenant; extend the authorization for temporary dining to areas of the Pier to be specified by the Director of the Community Development Department subject to specified conditions and any additional regulations; extend the authorization for temporary dining to portions of the sidewalk or roadway in the Third Street Promenade to be specified by the Director of the Community Development Department subject to specified conditions and any additional regulations; authorize the temporary use by businesses of adjacent sidewalks, adjacent private outdoor space, and areas of the Pier to be specified by the Director of the Community Development Department for business activities other than temporary dining, subject to specified conditions and any additional regulations; and authorize restaurants and other businesses to establish temporary parklets for business activities and outdoor dining in on-street parking and loading spaces adjacent to the restaurant or business, subject to specified conditions, specified design and safety specifications, and any additional regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Second Revised Eighteenth Supplement also authorized Business Improvement Districts and individual eligible businesses that have obtained a

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 4 temporary use permit to conduct sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales without otherwise complying with the provisions of the Executive Order; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order (“Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement”), which, among other things, superseded and replaced the prior versions of the Eighteenth Supplement, authorized the specified uses of public and private outdoor spaces through the duration of the County’s Health Officer Order, plus an additional 30 days, made other modification governing the conditions for use of the public and private space, and set fines for violations of the conditions for operating in the public right-of-way and in private outdoor spaces through administrative citations; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Twenty-Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order (“Twenty-Seventh Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized the Director of the Community Development Department to issue regulations regarding and issue temporary use permits for certain uses allowed by the County Safer at Home Order, including temporary outdoor sales and special events, for a period longer than 45 days but less than 180 days and waived processing fees for such temporary use permits; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Twenty-Eighth Supplement to the Executive Order (“Twenty-Eighth Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized the Director of the Community Development Department to issue permits for and regulations regarding the temporary extension by certain eligible businesses of their operations into unused portions of the parking lane on Main Street

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 5 where the City has placed K-rails and authorized such use through the duration of the County’s Health Officer Order, plus an additional 30 days; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Thirtieth Supplement to the Executive Order (“Thirtieth Supplement”), which, among other things, superseded and replaced Sections 1 through 3 of the Seventh Supplement with amended rules regarding off-site and retail alcohol sales that, in particular, add the requirement that authorized sales of to-go alcoholic beverages may be delivered to customers only at the same time as the required accompanying meals; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Thirty-Third Supplement to the Executive Order (“Thirty-Third Supplement”), which, among other things, authorized satellite outdoor dining in portions of the roadway in the Third Street Promenade pursuant to limitations set out in the supplement and regulations to be issued by the Director of the Community Development Department and authorized such use through the duration of the County’s Health Officer Order, plus an additional 30 days; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, April 6, April 14, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, July 28, September 8, October 27, and December 15, 2020, as well as on January 26, March 23, and effective May 22, 2021, the City Council ratified the Executive Order, as well as the supplements to the Executive Order in place at the time, including the Revised Fourth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Thirtieth, and Thirty-Third Supplements; and

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 6 WHEREAS, the City has issued approximately 70 permits to use private outdoor space pursuant to the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Eighth, and Thirty-Third Supplements; and
WHEREAS, the eligible businesses and restaurants with permits to use public and outdoor space as authorized under the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Eighth, and Thirty-Third Supplements have been issued temporary outdoor permits or entered into temporary outdoor encroachment agreements with the City, the terms of which are coterminous with the County’s Health Officer Order plus an additional 30 days; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, the Governor of the State of California announced the California would fully re-open its economy on June 15, 2021, provided that vaccine supply was sufficient and hospitalization rates were stable and low; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2021, the California Department of Public Health announced that, other than for mega events (those with crowds greater than 5,000 for indoor events and 10,000 for outdoor events), beginning on June 15, 2021, the State would not impose on businesses restrictions on capacity and physical distancing; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health announced that the County would align with the State’s June 15, 2021 reopening plans that ease many capacity limits and distancing requirements for businesses; and WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the restrictions imposed by the State’s COVID-19- related guidance and the County’s Health Officer Order, businesses, and particularly

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 7 restaurants, have suffered significant economic hardships; for example, according to Santa Monica’s fourth quarter sales tax report from 2020, restaurants are down 50-66% in sales from the same quarter in 2019 just prior to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, as a result of the State and County’s announcements regarding a planned June 15 reopening, the City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2674 (CCS) (“Emergency IZO 2674”) establishing interim zoning regulations to support economic recovery following the anticipated termination of the authorizations to use public space for outdoor business activities as set forth in the City’s Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Eighth, and Thirty-Third Supplements, and to support continued emergency response and pandemic recovery, by authorizing:
temporary use of private outdoor space; temporary permitted uses for emergency shelters, public safety facilities, and drive through facilities for Covid-19 testing and vaccination purposes; and flexibility in issuance of temporary use permits and alcoholic beverage sales; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, concurrently with consideration of Emergency IZO 2674, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2673 (CCS), an emergency ordinance adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, authorizing continued use of public space under the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Eighth and Thirty-Third Supplements; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, the Director of Emergency Services issued a ThirtySeventh Supplement to the Executive Order (“Thirty-Seventh Supplement”) which, among other things, allowed provisions of the Revised Fourth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Thirtieth, and Thirty-Third Supplements

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 8 authorizing continued use of public and private outdoor space for business, emergency response, and pandemic recovery activities to expire because they had been superseded by the adoption of Emergency IZO 2674 and Ordinance 2673; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, the City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2678 (CCS) extending the interim zoning regulations established by Emergency IZO 2674 (the “interim zoning regulations”) until June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 31, 2021, the Notice of Regulatory Relief expired, including provisions authorizing off-site sales of alcoholic beverages by restaurants, and flexibility in retail sales of alcoholic beverages; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2022, SB 389 became effective, which extends authority for off-site sales of alcoholic beverages by restaurants; and WHEREAS, the interim zoning regulations support economic recovery by temporarily suspending zoning regulations and provisions of previously-issued permits, including, but not limited to, parking requirements (except for those relating to accessible parking) and maximum floor area ratio, to the extent necessary to accommodate the temporary uses permitted by Emergency IZO 2674 and the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, currently, and in accordance with the interim zoning regulations, 87 local businesses are using a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit to conduct retail, restaurant, and fitness activities on private outdoor property—surface parking lots, courtyards, and other spaces on associated privately-owned commercial property—to help offset any pandemic-related indoor use restrictions or accommodate customer preference of being outdoors; and

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 9 WHEREAS, the interim zoning regulations have been a critical component of the City’s response to sustain businesses in Santa Monica during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as to allow for certain zoning changes to support emergency response and economic recovery; and
WHEREAS, continuing to allow eligible businesses to expand their operations to certain public and private outdoor spaces, and providing continued flexibility in the issuance of temporary use permits and alcoholic beverage sales, will facilitate business recovery, generate increased sales tax revenue for the City, and provide City staff the time necessary to develop and bring to Council a permanent and expanded program for businesses to use public and private outdoor space for their operations; and WHEREAS, continuing to permit emergency shelters and public safety facilities, and drive-through facilities for COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites offered by hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies in all zoning districts provides flexibility in uses related to health and safety that are supportive of emergency response and pandemic recovery; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and general welfare continues to exist as a result of the termination of the authorizations for: temporary use of public and private outdoor space as provided by the Third Revised Eighteenth, Twenty-Eighth, and ThirtyThird Supplements; permitted emergency shelters, public safety facilities, and drivethrough facilities for COVID-19 testing and vaccination purposes in all zoning districts as provided by the Revised Fourth Supplement; issuance of temporary use permits as provided by the Third Revised Eighteenth and Twenty-Seventh Supplements; and

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 10 allowed flexibility in off-site and retail sales of alcoholic beverages as provided by the Thirtieth Supplement; that approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement in accordance with current zoning regulations would impede the City’s ability to allow for uses related to health and safety that are supportive of emergency response and pandemic recovery and cause disruption to and economic harm to the City’s businesses; and that as a result extension of the interim zoning regulations established by Emergency IZO 2674 and extended by Emergency IZO 2678 pursuant to this emergency interim zoning ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Authorization for Temporary Uses.

A. Definitions. The following words and phrases have the following meanings when used in these interim zoning regulations:

1. “Eligible business” means (a) a business that operates out of a physical location in the City and has received any necessary entitlements from the City to operate; and (b) the use of the physical location by the business is a nonresidential use classification that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the district, other than a liquor store, or an automobile/vehicle service and repair, minor or major, as those terms are defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.51.030.

2. “Private outdoor space” means all or a portion of a parking lot, courtyard, plaza, or other private open space area either owned by the eligible

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 11 business or temporarily used by the eligible business as authorized by these interim zoning regulations. The private outdoor space must be on the same parcel or a parcel immediately adjacent to the eligible business.

3. “Director” means the Director of the Community Development Department or designee.

4. “Santa Monica Outdoors pilot program” means the use by a restaurant or eligible business of the Main Street Closure Area, Main Street satellite space, a parklet, the Promenade outdoor dining area, the Promenade satellite outdoor dining area, or a sidewalk for either, as applicable, outdoor dining or business activities in compliance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

6.40. B. Temporary Use of Private Outdoor Space.

1. Authorization. The Director is authorized to issue permits for temporary use of private outdoor space to eligible businesses that meet the requirements set forth in these interim zoning regulations and associated administrative regulations.

2. Temporary Use of Private Outdoor Space Requirements. a. Application and Fees. Any eligible business seeking to obtain a temporary use of private outdoor space permit shall submit an application using a form designated by the Director for that purpose. Any application shall be accompanied by the required fee, if any, adopted in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.37.020(C).

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 12 b. Permit required. No person may conduct a temporary use of private outdoor space without having obtained a permit from the City. c. Posting of Temporary Use of Outdoor Private Space Permit Required. The temporary use of private outdoor space permit shall be displayed by the eligible business during business hours. d. Signs. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter

9.61 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an eligible business that has obtained a temporary use of private outdoor space permit may place a single, non-permanent sign with the eligible business’s name and, if the eligible business is a restaurant, a menu within the private outdoor space that is subject to the temporary use of private outdoor space permit. e. Removal of new construction. Regardless of whether a building permit for any new construction in the private outdoor space is required or obtained, the City reserves the right to require the eligible business to remove any new construction in the private outdoor space following the expiration of these interim zoning regulations, or any permit issued for temporary use of private outdoor space pursuant to these interim zoning regulations, for any reason, including that the structure fails to comply with any provisions of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, or any conditions to permits previously issued by the City, including, but not limited to, parking requirements and maximum floor area ratio that are temporarily suspended under Section 3 of these interim zoning regulations. The construction of a temporary deck or other structure in the

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 13 private outdoor space does not confer any vested rights to any ongoing or continuing activities or use of such a deck or structure beyond the expiration of these interim zoning regulations or any permit issued for temporary use of private outdoor space pursuant to these interim zoning regulations. f. Compliance with Permit Requirements and Administrative Regulations. An eligible business that has obtained a temporary use of private outdoor space permit shall comply with any other permit requirements or conditions set forth in the administrative regulations issued under these interim zoning regulations.

3. Administrative Regulations.
a. The Director may adopt administrative regulations to implement the provisions of this Section 1(B), including, but not limited to, restrictions on hours of operation, and additional conditions for conducting the temporary outdoor eligible business activity use authorized by these interim zoning regulations.
b. No person shall fail to comply with the City’s administrative regulations.

C. Temporary Permitted Uses.

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the land use regulations set forth in Sections 9.07.020, 9.08.020, 9.09.080, 9.10.040, 9.11.020, 9.13.020,

9.14.020, or 9.15.020 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, for the term set forth in Section 2(B) below, the following use classifications shall be temporarily permitted uses in all zoning districts:

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 14 a. Public safety facility, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(A)(10); and
b. Emergency shelter, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020(A)(4); and
c. Drive-through facility for a clinic, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(A)(8)(a); hospital, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(A)(8)(b); general retail sales, small scale, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.51.030(B)(22)(b) that is operating as a pharmacy; or general sales, medium scale, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.51.030(B)(22)(b) that is operating as a pharmacy, all for the limited purpose of conducting COVID-19 testing and vaccination services.

2. Establishment of and development standards for the above-listed uses shall be approved by the Director or designee. No conditional use permit or temporary use permit shall be required for any of the above-listed uses.

Development standards, design review, parking and access requirements and sign standards related to any of the above-listed uses may be waived at the discretion of the Director or designee.

D. Temporary Use Permits.

1. Business Improvement Districts and individual eligible businesses that have obtained a Temporary Use Permit in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.44 may conduct sidewalk sales and other seasonal sales in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.370,

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 15 Temporary Uses and Seasonal Sales, without otherwise complying with the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40, Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program.

2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 9.44.060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Director or designee may issue Temporary Use Permits for uses that are permitted pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.370(b) of more than 45 consecutive days, but in no event more than 180 consecutive days, subject to making the required findings in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.44.030 and any conditions of approval imposed by the Director or designee pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.44.040.

The Director may issue only one temporary use permit under this paragraph per use during the term set forth in Section 2(C) below. Applicants that were issued a temporary use permit for up to 180 days pursuant to the Twenty-Seventh Supplement may receive one temporary use permit for up to 180 days during the term set forth in Section 2(C).

E. Alcoholic Beverage Sales.

1. Off-site Alcohol Sales for Restaurants. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 9.31.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, or any conditions to permits previously issued by the City, for the term set forth in Section 2(D) below, off-site alcohol sales shall be permitted for Restaurants, Full-Service, as that term is defined by Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(b) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and Restaurants, and Limited-Service and Take-Out, as that term is defined by Section 9.51.030(B)(8)(c) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code that:

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 16 a. Have obtained and are operating under a license to sell alcoholic beverages from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”);
b. Have obtained and are operating under a Conditional Use Permit or Alcohol Exemption issued by the City of Santa Monica, or are operating as an existing alcohol outlet without a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 9.31.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code; c. Conduct such sales in accordance with all conditions and requirements set forth in California Business and Professions Code Section 23401.5 related to selling alcoholic beverages for off-sale consumption ABC’s First Notice of Regulatory Relief issued on March 19, 2020, including, but not limited to, provisions related to On-Sale Retailers Exercising Off-Sale Privileges and Sales of Alcoholic Beverages To Go; and
d. Do not serve, deliver, or otherwise provide to the consumer any to-go alcoholic beverages before serving, delivering, or otherwise providing the consumer the meals sold in conjunction with any such to-go alcoholic beverages.

2. Retail Sales. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section

9.31.040, or any conditions to permits previously issued by the City, for the term set forth in Section 2(D) below, retail sales of alcohol shall be permitted in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth in ABC’s First Notice of Regulatory Relief issued on March 19, 2020 and the Second Notice of Regulatory

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 17 Relief issued on April 1, 2020 for Convenience Markets, as that term is defined by Section 9.52.030(B)(10)(a) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, General Markets, as that term is defined by Section 9.51.030(B)(10)(c) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and Liquor Stores, as that term is defined by Section

9.51.030(B)(10)(d) that:
a. Have obtained and are operating under a license to sell alcoholic beverages from ABC;
b. Have obtained and are operating under a Conditional Use Permit or Alcohol Exemption issued by the City of Santa Monica, or are operating as an existing alcohol outlet without a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 9.31.040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code; and c. Conduct such sales in accordance with all conditions and requirements set forth in ABC’s First Notice of Regulatory Relief issued on March 19, 2020 and the Second Notice of Regulatory Relief issued on April 1, 2020, including, but not limited to, Off-Sale Transactions Through PassOut Windows, Hours of Operations for Retail Sales, and Deliveries to Consumers.

SECTION 2. Term of Temporary Uses Authorized by Interim Zoning Regulations.

A. Temporary Use of Private Outdoor Space. The Director’s authority to issue permits for temporary use of private outdoor space pursuant to Section 1(B) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon expiration of these interim zoning regulations, unless otherwise extended in accordance

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 18 with Section 9.46.090(C) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Permits to authorize temporary use of private outdoor space issued pursuant to Section 1(B) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate and be of no further force or effect beyond December 31, June 30, 2022, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City at its discretion, and consistent with any noticing requirements set forth in the administrative regulations or the permit issued by the City.

B. Temporary Permitted Uses. Temporary permitted uses authorized by Section 1(C) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate upon expiration of these interim zoning regulations, unless otherwise extended in accordance with Section

9.46.090(C) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

C. Temporary Use Permits. The Director’s authority to issue temporary use permits pursuant to Section 1(D) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon expiration of these interim zoning regulations, unless otherwise extended in accordance with Section 9.46.090(C) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Temporary uses permitted by temporary use permits issued pursuant to Section 1(D) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate and be of no further force and effect in accordance with the terms of the temporary use permit.

D. Alcohol Sales. Alcohol sales authorized by Section 1(E) of these interim zoning regulations shall terminate upon expiration of these interim zoning regulations, unless otherwise extended in accordance with Section 9.46.090(C) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, or upon termination of the Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by ABC authorizing such sales, whichever is sooner.

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 19 SECTION 3. Temporary Suspension of Zoning Regulations.

The provisions of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Divisions 1 through 5 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, or any conditions to permits previously issued by the City, including, but not limited to, parking requirements (except for those relating to accessible parking) and maximum floor area ratio, are hereby temporarily suspended to the extent necessary to accommodate the temporary uses permitted by these interim zoning regulations and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

6.40, Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program.

SECTION 4. No Vested Rights Conferred.

Eligible business activity authorized by these interim zoning regulations shall be conducted as a temporary use, or a temporary accessory use to a legally established business that is located on the parcel, on an adjacent parcel, or, if the eligible business activity is conducted on a sidewalk, adjacent to the eligible business. Nothing in these interim zoning regulations, or any permits issued pursuant to these interim zoning regulations, shall be considered an entitlement or permit for permanent use or to confer any vested rights to any ongoing or continuing activities beyond the expiration of these interim zoning regulations, or the expiration of any permits issued pursuant to these interim zoning regulations.

SECTION 5. Enforcement.

A. Any person who violates any provision of these interim zoning regulations, including any administrative regulations, shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $250 dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 20 punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 dollars per violation or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.

B. Any person who violates any provision of these interim zoning regulations, including any administrative regulations, shall be subject to administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.09 and Chapter 1.10 of this Code.

C. Any person convicted of violating these interim zoning regulations in a criminal case, or found to be in violation of these interim zoning regulations in a civil or administrative case brought by a law enforcement agency, shall be ordered to reimburse the City and other participating law enforcement agencies their full investigative costs.

SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) 21 published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 9. This Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after December 31, 2022 unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.090(C).

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
SUSAN Y. COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.B.e
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance [Revision 1] (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins)) Board Executives
Chair
Michael Ricks
Providence Saint John’s
Health Center
Chair-elect
Greg Morena
The Albright
Past Chair
Becky Warren
Elevate Public Affairs
Treasurer
Len Lanzi
Stubbs, Alderton &
Markiles LLP
Vice Chair
Julia Ladd
Santa Monica
Place/Macerich
Vice Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding Larmore Kutcher
& Kozal LLP
Vice Chair
Ellis O’Connor
MSD Hospitality/Fairmont
Miramar Hotel
Board Members
Younes Atallah
Loews Santa Monica Beach
Hotel
Craig Babington
Morley Builders
Andrew Barrett-Weiss
GoodRX
Dom Bei
Santa Monica Firefighters
Local 1109
Jason Berkowitz
Arrow Up Training
Jasson Crockett
Snapchat
Kevin Delijani
Delphi Real Estate Group
Dr. Ben Drati
SMMUSD
Celia Fisher
Beach Moms Daycare
Rudy Flores
Santa Monica Police
Officers Association
Board Members, Cont.

Jeffrey Fritz
Fritz Buffone Group | Compass
Realty
Lisa Glasser
Oracle
Ryan Ole Hass
Align RE | a global real estate
collaboration
Ann Hsing
Pasjoli
Kathy Irby
Commercial Bank of California
Jeff Jarow
PAR Commercial
Dr. Kathryn Jeffery
Santa Monica College
Kim Koury
Spin PR
Julien Laracine
Proper Hospitality
Hayden Lee
Hayden Lee Coaching Intl.

Charlie Lopez-Quintana
ETC Hotels
Jonathan McCowan
310 Tutors
Susan Neisloss
Big Bite Productions
Pam O’Connor
Terry O’Day
In Charge Energy
Janet Rimicci
UCLA Health
Laura Rosenbaum
CIT One West
Beth Schroeder
Raines Feldman
Jon Shoemaker
Gumbiner Savett, Inc.

Nat Trives
Coalition for Engaged
Education
Jerry L. Yu
Kaiser Permanente
May 10, 2022
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California, 90401
RE: Item 7.B – Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program - SUPPORT Dear Mayor and Council Members:

On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce we write in support of item 7.B on tonight’s agenda.

The City’s swift action in standing up a no-cost outdoor business program has provided a lifeline to our local businesses which have struggled through the past two years of a global pandemic.

While the horizon is brighter than it has been in the past two years, the reality is our businesses still need as much support as possible to stabilize their finances and operations.

Extending the pilot program, fee waivers, and IZO will provide our businesses with additional financial relief and certainty that the investments they have made in their outdoor business spaces will continue to serve customers and generate revenue for them.

We thank you for your attention to our business community’s concerns and your continued action to support our community’s economic recovery.

Sincerely,
Matt Stauffer Michael Ricks
Interim CEO 2021-22 Board Chair
Item 7.B
05/12/22
1 of 1 Item 7.B
05/12/22

7.B.f
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension (15 mins))

SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS

TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR PROGRAM
Extension Request
City Council May 11, 2022

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension

SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS PILOT PROGRAM

TONIGHT'S REQUEST
1) Amend SMMC Chapter 6.40 Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot
Program to extend term to September 30, 2022 (TUP operations + fee waivers)
2) Adopt a resolution to authorize extension of fee waivers for monthly outdoor license fees, including existing monthly sidewalk dining license fees and outdoor fitness fees in City Parks and the Beach 3) Introduce and Adopt an Emergency IZO amending and extending interim zoning regulations established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2674 (CCS) and extended by Emergency IZO Ordinance No. 2678

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS – TEMPORARY USE PERMIT

SANTA MONICA OUTDOORS PILOT PROGRAM
❑ Established under City Council Emergency Orders
❑ To facilitate these uses prior to the Emergency Order expirations, City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the SM Outdoors Pilot Program (SMMC Chapter 6.40) and a resolution to waive associated fees on June 8, 2021 ❑ On December 14, 2021 Council extended the Pilot Program to June 30, 2022 Recommended Action: To extend the SM Pilot Program through September 30, 2022
Staff will return to Council in June 2022 to review options for longer-term parklet program.

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension IZO Extension of Outdoor Use of Private Property | Extended Through December 31, 2022 ❑ Temporary Outdoor Use of Private Property
» Outdoor Dining | Retail | Fitness | Personal Services » Surface Parking Lots | Other Open Space Areas
❑ Emergency Response & Economic Recovery
» Temporarily allow Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Shelters in all Zones » Temporarily allow Drive-Through Facilities (COVID Testing + Vaccination Sites) ❑ Continued Economic Recovery
» Allow Temporary Uses supportive of Economic Recovery (up to 6 months) » Off-Site Restaurant Alcohol Sales and Retail Alcohol Sales ❑ Separate Review Path from the Parklet Program
» Staff to return to Council in Fall 2022 (specific Program for Outdoor Use of Private Property)

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension SIDEWALK DINING – LEVERAGING CITY ASSETS TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension PARKLETS DINING – LEVERAGING CITY ASSETS TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension

OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension

MAIN STREET AL FRESCO
Photo Credit: Sean Paul Franjet

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension TEMPORARY FITNESS ZONES + PERMITS

7.B.g
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4858 : Santa Monica Outdoors Program Extension City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cola, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Appointment of City Attorney and Authorization to Execute Agreement Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council:

1. Appoint Douglas Sloan as City Attorney commencing on June 6, 2022; and

2. Authorize the Mayor to execute an employment agreement with Mr. Sloan for his service as City Attorney.

Discussion
On March 22, 2022, Council appointed City of Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney and Senior Special Projects Attorney, Susan Cola to serve as Interim City Attorney pending final recruitment and hiring of a permanent City Attorney. That recruitment has now been completed.

An employment agreement has been negotiated with Mr. Sloan for his service as City Attorney, commencing on June 6, 2022. Mr. Sloan worked for the City of Fresno’s City Attorney’s office for 16 years and served as the City Attorney for the City of Fresno for the last nine years.

A copy of the agreement is attached as Exhibit A. This employment agreement sets out the full terms of the compensation and benefits to be provided to Mr. Sloan. The agreement has a term of five years. The City will pay Mr. Sloan a base annual salary of $320,136.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1601
2 of 2
Because he will be serving as a “local agency executive” as defined in Government Code Section 3511.1(d), California law requires that Mr. Sloan’s pay be approved at a regular meeting, with an oral summary provided before final action is taken. See Government Code Sections 54953(c)(3), 54956(b).

Fiscal Impacts
Salary and benefits for the City Attorney position are included in the FY 2021-22 Budget.

Prepared By: Heidi Von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised)

8.A
Packet Pg. 1602

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Employment Agreement, entered into this ___day of May 2022 (“Execution Date”), and effective as of June 6, 2022 (“Employment Date”), by and between the City of Santa Monica, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and Douglas Sloan ("Sloan" or "Employee"), is made with reference to the following.

RECITALS
A. On May 10, 2022, the Santa Monica City Council appointed Sloan to the position of City Attorney of the City of Santa Monica effective as of June 6, 2022.

B. The City and Sloan wish to enter into an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of Sloan’s employment as the City Attorney of the City of Santa Monica.

C. The City Council and Sloan both prefer that Sloan, during his employment as City Attorney, live in Santa Monica.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and Sloan agree as follows.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Salary.

Commencing as of the Employment Date, City agrees to pay Employee a base annual salary in the amount of Three Hundred Twenty Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Six dollars and no cents ($320,136.00)(Step 5), payable in installments in the same manner and at the same time as other City employees are paid.

2. Performance Evaluations.

The City Council will complete formal performance evaluations of Employee’s performance in the position of City Attorney as follows. (a) initial evaluation after completion of first six months of employment; (b) second evaluation after completion of first twelve months of employment; (c) thereafter, an annual evaluation after completion of every twelve months of employment.

3. Other Terms of Employment.

3.1 Duration of agreement. Duration of Agreement. Following Employee’s commencement of employment as the City Attorney on the Employment Date, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for a period of five years until June 6, 2027 (the “Initial Term”), or such earlier date on which Employee, pursuant to the terms

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) 2 of this Agreement, is no longer employed by City as its City Attorney, whether as the result of resignation, termination, separation, or any other reason. On June 7, 2027, and on each succeeding June 7 while this Agreement is in effect, the Initial Term, and any subsequent term resulting from extension, of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for successive periods of one (1) year.

3.2 Termination of Employment. The City Attorney position is an at-will position, subject to termination by the City Council at any time. Upon resignation, you shall provide a 90-day written notice.

3.3 Severance. The position of City Attorney may be terminated at the discretion of the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in City Charter Section 700.

In the event of such a termination of Employee’s employment, or upon Employee’s separation from employment by mutual agreement documented in writing between City and Employee, City shall pay to Employee severance pay in an amount equal to nine (9) months of Employee’s base bi-weekly salary, such payment to be made within thirty (30) days of Employee’s termination or separation from employment. Severance pay shall not be required pursuant to this paragraph, and Employee shall not be entitled to any severance pay only if. (a) Employee resigns or retires; (b) the termination of Employee from the position of City Attorney was the result of good cause as defined below; or (c) Employee moves from employment by City in the position as City Attorney to employment by City in any other position. For purposes of this Agreement, good cause is defined only as follows. (1) conviction of Employee, whether by verdict or plea of guilty or nolo contendere, of any crime of moral turpitude; (2) willful misconduct by Employee; or (3) proven failure of Employee to observe or perform any of his duties and obligations as City Attorney, if that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of Employee’s receipt of written notice from the City Council specifying the acts or omissions deemed to constitute that failure.

3.4 CalPERS Retirement. California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) retirement formula is based on appointment date and membership status with CalPERS. The City does not participate in Social Security but does participate in Medicare, which requires a 1.45% contribution by both the employee and the City.

4. City-paid Health Insurance. The City pays 92% of the medical insurance premium for employee and eligible dependents. Employee contributes 8% towards the premium. The City pays 100% of premiums for dental and vision plans and Employee Assistance Program for employee and eligible dependents. Employees who elect cash-in-lieu of medical coverage, are entitled to a bi-weekly taxable payment in the amount of $69.23 ($1800/annually).

5. Retiree Medical. The City contributes into a retiree medical trust ($176.56 per month as of January 2022). Upon eligibility, the City pays for retiree’s (employees only) medical insurance up to age 70, as provided in the Executive Pay Plan (EPP) Resolution.

6. Long Term Disability Insurance. The City pays the premium for LTD coverage.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) 3 7. Supplemental Retirement Plans. A 457 plan is available for voluntary participation. A 401(a) plan is also provided and there is a $625/month employee contribution with a onetime option to opt-out of the plan. The City contributes $190/month to the 401(a) plan.

8. Holiday/Vacation/Sick Leave.
14 holidays, includes 2 floating holidays, one of which can be cashed out at the end of the fiscal year.
21 vacation days/year, which accrues at 1.75 days per month. This is a higher accrual rate based on your years of service in public sector. Following completion of the first six calendar months of service, you will receive 48 hours of vacation in your account. Thereafter, you will accrue 14 hours per month. A bank of 40 hours of vacation will be available immediately.

One (1) sick leave day per month. Sick leave accrued but not used in a fiscal year can be cashed out at the end of the fiscal year based on the formula outlined in the Executive Pay Plan.

A bank of 40 hours of sick will be available immediately.

9. Term Life Insurance. City-paid term life insurance coverage of two times your base salary, rounded to the next $1,000, not to exceed $500,000.

10. Management Leave Days. You will receive three days of non-cashable leave and one day of cashable leave July 1st of each fiscal year. The non-cashable days must be taken by the end of the fiscal year and cannot be carried over to the following year. The cashable day must be used by or cashed out at the end of the fiscal year.

11. Tuition Reimbursement. Participants of the Executive Pay Plan are reimbursed tuition and required study material reimbursement for career improvement or job enhancement courses approved by the City Manager or authorized designee up to $2,000/annually.

Professional dues, memberships, and continuing education are considered within the City Attorney’s Office department budget.

12. Relocation Costs. City shall reimburse you for moving expenses (up to $20,000 based on actual invoices). You shall obtain three bids for moving services, provide those bids to the Mayor and confer with the Mayor to arrive at a mutually agreed on selection of moving services, and provide to City receipts for the payment of moving expenses.

13. Temporary Rental Assistance. City shall provide $3,000 per month for a maximum of 7 months for temporary rental housing allowance during the time on and after the employment date in which you are living in temporary rental housing in Santa Monica (or as close to Santa Monica as possible if you are not able to obtain temporary rental housing within Santa Monica) prior to moving into a permanent residence, whether rented or owned, in Santa Monica, or as close as possible to Santa Monica.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) 4 14. Executive Pay Plan. You will receive any other benefits provided under the terms of the Executive Pay Plan which covers department head positions. A copy of the Executive Pay Plan in effect for the period July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. To the extent provisions in this Agreement differ from provisions in the Executive Pay Plan, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

15. Exempt Employee. As City Attorney, Employee will be an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, work during normal business hours of City and, in addition, devote whatever time is necessary to accomplish the work of his position without eligibility to accrue compensatory time or to be paid overtime compensation. As a result, Employee will not have to account for his work time on an hourly basis and will only need to account for each full day of absence that occurs on a regularly scheduled workday.

16. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and Employee.

17. No Presumption Against Any Party. This Agreement is the product of the efforts of all parties, and the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed or interpreted for or against any party solely on the grounds that the party proposed or drafted a particular clause.

18. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.

19. Venue and Jurisdiction. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate. The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement.

20. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is declared or determined by a court to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the legality, validity, and enforceability of the remaining parts, terms, or provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable part, term, or provision shall either be deemed modified in such manner as to render such part, term, or provision legal, valid, and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law or shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) 5 21. Waiver of Breach. A non-breaching party may waive the breach of any provision of this Agreement only by executing a writing. Waiver of any breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

22. Indemnification. To the full extent of the law as provided by the California Government Claims Act (formerly the California Torts Claims Act (Government Code Section 810, et seq.)), City shall defend and indemnify Employee against any claim or action filed against Employee for injury or loss arising out of an act or omission occurring with the scope of the Employee’s duties on the City’s behalf for the period of Employee’s employment, subject to the limitation of the California Government Claims Act.

23. Electronic Signatures. Each party agrees that the transaction consisting of this Agreement may be conducted by electronic means. Each party agrees and acknowledges that it is such party’s intent, that if such party signs this Agreement using an electronic signature, it is signing, adopting, and accepting this Agreement and that signing this Agreement using an electronic signature is the legal equivalent of having placed its handwritten signature on this Agreement on paper. Each party acknowledges that it is being provided with an electronic or paper copy of this Agreement in a usable format.

24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in any number of counterparts, including both counterparts that are executed manually on paper and counterparts that are in the form of electronic records and are executed electronically, whether digital or encrypted, each of which shall be deemed an original and together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

In witness whereof, this Agreement was executed on the day and year first written above.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation

By. ________________________ By.__________________________ Sue Himmelrich, Mayor Douglas Sloan
Date. _______________________ Date. _________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM. ATTEST.
___________________________ _____________________________ Susan Y. Cola, Interim City Attorney Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date. _______________________ Date. _______________________ cc: Human Resources

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney)

Exhibit A

EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN
In effect July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
[Behind this page]

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0
-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN
JULY 1, 2020 - JUNE 30, 2021
CONTRACTNO. (CCS)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Term of Pay Plan .......................................................................................................... 1 B. Participants.................................................................................................................... 1 C. Compensation ............................................................................................................... 1 D. Hours of Work and Overtime ....................................................................................... 2 E. Overpayment Remedy ................................................................................................. 2 F. Pay for Serving in a Higher Job Classification .............................................................. 2 G. Retirement ..................................................................................................................... 2 H. Health and Dental Insurance ....................................................................................... 5 I. Vision Care........................................................................................................................ 5 J. Employee Assistance Program....................................................................................... 5 K. Life Insurance................................................................................................................ 5 L. Long Term Disability Insurance ...................................................................................... 5 M. Retiree Medical Insurance ........................................................................................... 6 N. Annual Physical Exam.................................................................................................. 6 O. Tuition Reimbursement ................................................................................................ 6 P. Deferred Compensation ............................................................................................... 7 Q. Supplemental Retirement Plan.................................................................................... 7 R. Paid Holidays ................................................................................................................ 7 S. Vacation Leave ............................................................................................................. 8 T. Sick Leave....................................................................................................................... 10 U. Bereavement Leave.................................................................................................... 12 V. Jury Duty...................................................................................................................... 12 W. Workers’ Compensation Leave ................................................................................. 13 X. Sabbatical Leave ........................................................................................................ 13 Y. Severance Pay............................................................................................................ 14 Z. Management Leave ....................................................................................................... 14

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 1 A. Term of Pay Plan
This Executive Pay Plan (“EPP”) is effective as of July 1, 2020, until June 30, 2021, or until such time that a successor pay plan is approved.

B. Participants
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan include Department Heads, and each City employee who has a separate employment agreement providing for participation in the Executive Pay Plan.

Each employee who chooses to be individually represented has the right to stop participation in the Executive Pay Plan and to request representation by an appropriate unit in accordance with the City’s Employer-Employee Relations rules. Employees who exercise that right cannot again become participants in the Executive Pay Plan during the term of this Resolution.

C. Compensation
Effective August 2, 2020:
a. EPP Department Heads (except the Police Chief and Fire Chief) whose base salary exceeds $200,000 per year shall have their salary reduced by three Steps (i.e., a 15% reduction).
b. EPP Department Heads whose base salary is less than $200,000 per year, and the Deputy City Manager, shall have their salary reduced by two Steps (i.e., a 10% reduction).
c. The Police Chief and Fire Chief shall have their base salary reduced by 7.5%.
d. EPP participants who are not Department Heads or the Deputy City Manager, and who are located in the City Manager’s Office, shall have their base salary reduced by 5%.
e. The salary reductions stated above shall automatically expire on June 30, 2021. The base salaries of EPP participants shall revert to the base salaries that were in effect as of June 30, 2020.

2. Educational Incentive
Effective July, 1, 2018, the Police Chief and Fire Chief shall each receive a flat $230.77 bi-weekly education incentive for a POST Executive Certificate or Master’s Degree for the Police Chief, and for a Chief Fire Officer (CFO) or Master’s Degree for the Fire Chief.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 2 3. In an effort to address salary compaction, the City Manager may authorize a differential of up to 15% between the base salary of a position in the Executive Pay Plan and the base salary of the next highest-paid subordinate. Additionally, the City Manager may authorize a differential of 5% between the compensation of the Assistant City Manager and the compensation of the highest-paid Department Head.

D. Hours of Work and Overtime
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan are exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, work during normal business hours of the City and, in addition, devote whatever time is necessary to accomplish the work of their position without eligibility to accrue compensatory time or to be paid overtime compensation. As a result, employees do not have to account for their work time on an hourly basis and only need to account for each full day of absence that occurs on a regularly scheduled work day.

E. Overpayment Remedy
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan shall reimburse the City for any overpayment of wages or benefits. Said reimbursement is not required until the City notifies the affected employee in writing. Reimbursement may be accomplished by a lump sum deduction from the next payroll warrant issued to the employee following notification, or by other reasonable repayment method mutually acceptable to the employee and the City, except that a lump sum deduction will be required if the next payroll warrant issued to the employee is the final or termination warrant.

F. Pay for Serving in a Higher Job Classification
If an employee is assigned on an interim or acting basis to a vacant position in a higher level job classification, the employee shall receive the salary rate for the higher level job classification at the lowest salary step of the salary range that provides an increase of at least 5% over his/her current salary, for all such work days assigned in the higher level job classification.

G. Retirement
The City is a contract member of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), and it is understood and agreed that such membership will be maintained and that employee eligibility, classification, contributions, and benefits are as prescribed in the contract between the City and CalPERS heretofore approved by the Santa Monica City Council. The terms and conditions regarding CalPERS retirement and optional benefits for miscellaneous employees between the City and Administrative Team Associates (ATA), Management Team Associates (MTA), Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Public Attorneys Union (PAU), Public Attorneys’ Legal Support Staff Union

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 3 (PALSSU), Supervisory Team Association (STA), The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division (SMART-TD) Local 1785, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 911, and EPP participants are covered by an Umbrella Agreement between the City and a Coalition of those recognized employee organizations.

1. Tier 1 employees hired by the City before July 1, 2012, are provided the following retirement benefits:

A. 2.7% @ 55 benefit formula with a final compensation period calculated as the single-highest year or highest 12 consecutive months of compensation earnable.

B. The City pays the entire member contribution equal to 8% of compensation earnable and reports the value of that employer-paid member contribution (EPMC) to CalPERS as compensation
earnable pursuant to California Government Code Section 20636(c)(4). In return, each employee shall contribute to the City the added cost resulting from paying employer and employee retirement contributions on the EPMC, which is an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the value of the EPMC by the sum of 8% plus the City’s prescribed annual contribution rate to CalPERS.

C. Employee contributions include (1) a portion of the required employer contribution equal to 6.7% of compensation earnable as cost-sharing pursuant to Government Code Section 20516(f) and (2) the cost for the enhanced benefit of EPMC.

2. Tier 2 employees hired by the City on or after July 1, 2012, are provided the following retirement benefits:

A. 2% @ 55 benefit formula with a final compensation period based upon the highest annual average compensation earnable during the 36 months immediately preceding the effective date of retirement or another period designated by the employee.

B. Employee contributions include the entire required member contribution equal to 7% of compensation earnable.

3. Employees hired on or after January 1, 2013, who are “new members” as defined in the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 are provided the following retirement benefits:

A. 2% @ 62 benefit formula with a final compensation period based upon the highest annual average compensation earnable during the 36 months immediately preceding the effective date of retirement or another period designated by the employee.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 4 B. “New members” enrolled in CalPERS on or after January 1, 2013, are required to contribute at least one-half of the total normal cost as calculated and established in the annual CalPERS valuation report. If the total normal cost of the plan changes by one percent or more from the base total normal cost established for the plan, then the new member rate shall be 50% of the new normal cost rounded up to the next highest quarter percent.

The terms and conditions pertaining to other optional CalPERS benefits, including but not limited to Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefit as set forth in Government Code Section 21574 and the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit as set forth in Government Code Section 21548, will apply to all employees.

The Police Chief shall be provided the 3% @ 50 benefit formula as set forth in Government Code Section 21363.2. The Police Chief shall contribute an amount equal to that of the Santa Monica Police Officers Association each year.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 20691, the Police Chief shall pay 100% of the member contribution of the required retirement contributions to CalPERS (9% of the employee’s “compensation earnable” as defined by the Public Employees' Retirement Law, Government Code Section 20000 et seq.). Effective July 1, 2017, and as provided for in Government Code Section 20516(f), the Police Chief shall pay to CalPERS pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement, 6.5% of “compensation earnable.” Effective July 1, 2018, the Police Chief shall pay to CalPERS pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement, 7.5% of “compensation earnable.”
The Fire Chief shall be provided the 3% @ 55 benefit formula as set forth in Government Code Section 21363.1. The Fire Chief shall contribute an amount equal to that of the Santa Monica Firefighters, Local 1109, each year. Pursuant to Government Code Section 20691, the Fire Chief shall pay 100% of the member contribution of the required retirement contributions to CalPERS (9% of the employee's "compensation earnable" as defined by the Public Employees' Retirement Law, Government Code Section 20000 et. seq.). Effective July 1, 2017, and as provided for in Government Code Section 20516(f), the Fire Chief shall pay to CalPERS pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement, 4% of “compensation earnable.” Effective July 1, 2018, the Fire Chief shall pay to CalPERS pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement, 6% of “compensation earnable.”
The City’s payments of the employee’s share of required retirement contributions to CalPERS are not increases of salary and no salary range applicable to any of the affected employees shall be changed or be deemed to have been changed by reason of such payments; as a result, the City will not treat these payments as ordinary income and thus, will not withhold federal or state income tax therefrom.

The City's practice will be to report these payments as being those of the

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 5 employees so that they will be credited to the particular employee's individual account with CalPERS and upon termination will belong to the employee.

It is agreed that if state or federal procedures require reporting of these payments in any other manner, the parties will abide by such requirements.

All other terms and conditions set forth in the Umbrella Agreement and not noted above shall apply to participants of the Executive Pay Plan.

H. Health and Dental Insurance
The medical insurance provision for employees covered hereunder is set forth in the Umbrella Agreement, which covers the following non-sworn City bargaining units: ATA, MTA, MEA, PAU, PALSSU, STA, SMART-TD, IBT, and EPP participants.

Dental insurance coverage shall be provided at no cost to employees and their eligible dependents, provided that employees participate in the City-offered dental insurance programs. The City retains the right to change the provider of this benefit.

I. Vision Care
The City agrees to provide vision care insurance, with no cost for monthly premiums, to participants in the Executive Pay Plan and their eligible dependents, provided that employees participate in the City-offered vision insurance plan. The City retains the right to select the provider and to set the levels of coverage for vision care insurance.

J. Employee Assistance Program
The City agrees to select and provide an employee assistance program, with no cost for monthly premiums, to participants in the Executive Pay Plan and their eligible dependents. The City retains the right to select the provider and to set the levels of coverage and benefits of this program.

K. Life Insurance
Each participant in the Executive Pay Plan shall receive term life insurance at City expense with the amount of said insurance to be two times the participant's annual salary, rounded to the nearest $1,000, not to exceed $500,000.

L. Long Term Disability Insurance
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan shall receive long term disability insurance coverage at City expense. Subject to the usual provisions and exclusions of such insurance plans, the coverage shall be for 60% of salary, with benefit not to exceed $8,333 per month, after a 60-day elimination period.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 6 M. Retiree Medical Insurance
A participant in the Executive Pay Plan who retires from the City of Santa Monica and whose age upon retirement, when added to the participant’s years of service with public agencies, equals or exceeds 70, and who has also completed at least five years of service with the City of Santa Monica, is entitled to a City-paid medical insurance plan upon retirement. For eligible retirees who are between ages 65 and 70, that plan shall be a Medicare-supplement plan.

At the City Manager’s discretion, the requirement that the participant complete at least five years of service with the City of Santa Monica may be waived or reduced based on the terms and conditions of the participant’s previous employment.

The City shall pay the premiums for the retiree only. Payments shall cease when the retiree reaches age 70.

N. Annual Physical Exam
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan shall receive an annual physical examination at City expense. Participants may use their own personal physician for this physical, provided that the cost does not exceed the cost of the Cityoffered program.

O. Tuition Reimbursement
The City will budget annually sufficient funds to provide each participant of the Executive Pay Plan tuition and required study material reimbursement for career improvement or job enhancement courses approved by the City Manager or authorized designee. Reimbursement shall equal the total cost of tuition (exclusive of lodging and meals) and the total cost of required study materials, provided however, that:

1. The maximum annual amount of reimbursement per employee shall not exceed $2,000.

2. The course of study must be approved in advance by the City Manager or authorized designee.

3. The course must be directed to qualifications for an employment position represented in the City work force or to enhancement of current job skills.

4. The employee must exhibit some reasonable expectation of qualifying for the new position upon successful completion of the study course if that was the reason for the course.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 7 5. The tuition and other covered expenses shall be paid in advance by the City upon the pre-authorization of the course by the City Manager and the Director of Human Resources or his or her designee.

6. In no event shall the City's reimbursement be reduced when there is an outside source of aid, except in those cases where the aid from any outside source, plus the normal City reimbursement, exceeds the cost of tuition and study material for the approved study course.

7. Courses for which tuition reimbursement will be made must be taken on the employee's time or on authorized vacation leave.

8. The procedure to be followed with regard to the administration of the tuition reimbursement program shall be established by the Human Resources Department.

9. If the employee does not pass the pre-authorized course or separates from City employment before completing the course, the employee must reimburse the City for any payment made by the City under this provision.

P. Deferred Compensation
The City shall establish and maintain a deferred compensation plan under rules and regulations established pursuant to Section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each participant in the Executive Pay Plan, at his or her sole discretion, may defer and have deposited into the City's plan a portion of his or her compensation up to the maximum amount permitted by law. This contribution will not reduce the employee’s base pay except for tax purposes.

The employee’s base pay shall remain unchanged for all other purposes.

Q. Supplemental Retirement Plan.

The City shall establish and maintain a pension plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each participant in the Executive Pay Plan will contribute $625 per month into the 401(a) plan. This contribution will not reduce the employee's base pay except for tax purposes. The employee's base pay shall remain unchanged for all other purposes. Employees hired after July 1, 2017, have the option to “opt-out” of the mandatory $625 per month employee contribution.

Effective July 1, 2018, the City shall contribute $190 per month to the 401(a) plan, or, if the employee makes the irrevocable decision to opt out of the 401(a) upon hire, then the same amount of $190 per month shall alternatively be contributed to a 457 plan on the employee’s behalf.

R. Paid Holidays

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 8 The Director of Transit Services shall receive those paid holidays provided in the SMART-TD Local 1785 MOU, provided, however, that the same number of holidays (12) shall be observed. The City Librarian shall receive those paid holidays observed by the City libraries, provided, however, that the same number of holidays (12) shall be observed. All other participants in the Executive Pay Plan shall receive the following paid holidays:

New Year's Day January 1
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday Third Monday in January Presidents' Day Third Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4
Labor Day First Monday in September
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Friday following Thanksgiving Day
Half-day immediately before Christmas Day
Christmas Day December 25
Half-day immediately before New Year's Day
One non-cashable floating holiday
One cashable floating holiday
All other holidays declared by City Council
A non-cashable floating holiday (i.e., eight hours) becomes available as of January 1st. Only those participants of the Executive Pay Plan who are on the payroll as of January 1st are entitled to receive the non-cashable floating holiday for that fiscal year. The non-cashable floating holiday must be taken before the end of the fiscal year. If the non-cashable holiday is not taken by the end of the fiscal year, the holiday cannot be cashed out and is forfeited.

A cashable floating holiday (i.e., eight hours) becomes available at the beginning of each fiscal year and must be taken before the end of that fiscal year. Only those participants of the Executive Pay Plan who are on the payroll at the beginning of the fiscal year are entitled to receive the cashable floating holiday for the fiscal year. A cashable floating holiday not taken by the end of the fiscal year shall be paid to the participant of the Executive Pay Plan at the end of the fiscal year. A cashable floating holiday that is cashed out at the end of the fiscal year shall be paid in an amount equal to eight hours of the employee's base salary rate of pay.

If an employee is required to work on a City-recognized holiday, the employee will be able to take another regularly scheduled work day off with pay during that fiscal year.

S. Vacation Leave

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 9 Participants in the Executive Pay Plan shall receive vacation leave as provided in the Santa Monica Municipal Code, provided, however, that they may accrue a maximum of three times their annual accrual rate. Participants may accrue beyond three times the annual accrual rate, not to exceed a total of ten additional days (80 hours), as personal leave, which is not subject to cash-out upon an employee's separation from City service. In addition, the City Manager may authorize the accrual of vacation leave beyond these limits in individual cases where the employee has been unable to use vacation due to work demands.

Each employee accrues vacation leave as follows:
1) Following completion of the first six calendar months of completed service, 48 hours.
2) Thereafter, up to and including five completed years of service, eight hours for each completed calendar month of service.
3) Thereafter, up to and including ten completed years of service, ten hours for each completed calendar month of service.
4) Thereafter, up to and including 15 completed years of service, 12 hours for each completed calendar month of service.
5) Upon completion of 15 years of service and thereafter, 14 hours for each completed calendar month of service.

At the City Manager's discretion, a new participant in the Executive Pay Plan, based on the terms and conditions of the participant's previous employment, may be granted a vacation accrual rate that exceeds that listed above, but not greater than, 14 hours for each completed calendar month of service.

Each employee has the option to cash out up to 48 hours of accrued vacation on two occasions each calendar year (on or about July 1st and the last paycheck in December), as follows:

In order to exercise this option with respect to the July cash-out, an employee must, before the end of the preceding calendar year, designate the number of hours, up to the applicable maximum number of hours allowed, that he/she would like to cash out effective on or about July 1st. If the employee fails to make a designation, he/she will not be allowed to cash out any hours at that time.

In order to exercise this option with respect to the December cash-out, an employee must, before the end of the preceding calendar year, designate the number of hours, up to the applicable maximum number of hours allowed, that he/she would like to cash out effective the last paycheck in December. If the employee fails to make a designation, he/she will not be allowed to cash out any hours at that time.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 10 Once an employee has elected to participate in the Vacation Cash-out Program, the total number of hours designated for cash-out will be automatically processed and paid. If an employee has a lower balance of vacation hours than the designated number of vacation hours, only available vacation hours at the time of cash-out will be processed.

For employees who elect to cash out vacation hours as specified above, those hours will be paid to the employee at the end of the fiscal year at the same time as the Sick Leave Buy Back Program.

During the term of this Resolution, if another City bargaining group, with the exception of the Santa Monica Police Officers Association, the Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109, IBT Local 911, and SMART-TD Local 1785, negotiates a vacation cash-out program that provides lower minimum vacation leave balances or a greater number of cashable hours, that program shall also apply to participants of the Executive Pay Plan.

T. Sick Leave
Participants in the Executive Pay Plan earn sick leave as follows:

1. Upon completion of the first six calendar months of completed service, 48 hours.

2. Thereafter, eight hours per completed calendar month of service.

At the City Manager's discretion, a new participant in the Executive Pay Plan, based on the terms and conditions of the participant's previous employment, may be granted a lump sum number of sick leave days upon his or her employment with the City of Santa Monica.

The use of sick leave shall be as defined in the Santa Monica Municipal Code, hereby incorporated as if set forth in full herein, except as follows:

Sick leave shall be defined as absence from duty because of the employee's illness or off-the- job injury, exposure of the employee to contagious disease as evidenced by certification from an accepted medical authority, medical or dental appointments of the employee or the employee's dependent children that could not be scheduled during non-work hours, or illness or injury of the employee's spouse or children. For the purposes of this Section, an employee's domestic partner and the children of the employee's domestic partner are covered by this provision.

Participants in the Executive Pay Plan may elect annually, at the end of the fiscal year, to receive a payoff for unused sick leave on the terms and limits noted below or to “bank” unused sick leave. An employee can also elect to split the number of sick leave days subject to buy back and can designate that a portion of those days, as specified by the employee, be placed in the employee’s sick

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 11 leave bank as opposed to being cashed out. Payment at the employee's then current base rate for the fiscal year during which the sick leave was earned but not used shall be made only to employees working during the last payroll of the fiscal year as defined by the Finance Department.

Annual sick leave payoffs under this Section for employees are made according to the following schedule, provided that there are enough sick days accrued in the employee's sick leave bank to cover the payoff described below:

Less than 10 Years of Service
Sick Leave Hours Used
In the Fiscal Year
16 or less
24 32
40 48
56 64
72 80
88 Sick Leave Hours Payable
At Fiscal Year End
72 64
56 48
40 32
24 16
8 0
10 or More Years of Service
Sick Leave Hours Used
In the Fiscal Year
16 or less
24 32
40 48
56 64
72 80
88 96
Sick Leave Hours Payable
At Fiscal Year End
96 88
80 72
64 56
48 40
32 24
16 8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 12 104 8
112 or more 0
Sick leave for which payoff is received shall be considered “used” in that it will not be added to the “bank” (or if added to the “bank” prior to the payoff date shall be removed from the “bank”).

Sick leave payoffs under this Section shall be made by separate check by the end of July following the fiscal year in which the payable sick leave was earned.

For the purposes of this Section, sick leave days subject to payoff at the end of the fiscal year shall be paid on the basis of eight hours pay, at the employee’s base salary rate of pay, for each sick leave day eligible for payoff.

U. Bereavement Leave
Bereavement leave of not more than five working days with pay shall be provided for absence from duty due to the death of the employee’s immediate family member, meaning: spouse, domestic partner, child, step-child, child of the employee’s domestic partner, brother, sister, parent, stepparent, parent-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law. Bereavement leave of not more than three working days shall be provided for absence from duty due to the death of other family members to include sister-in-law, brother-in-law, step-brother, step-sister, grandparent, grandchild, spouse of stepchild, step-parent of spouse, uncle, aunt, niece, and nephew. Use of additional appropriate leave (i.e., vacation, sick, or personal leave) shall not be unduly denied for additional absence from duty beyond that provided above.

V. Jury Duty
Employees, when duly called to serve on any jury and when unable to be excused therefrom, shall receive the regular base compensation less all jury fees received excluding mileage for the time required to be spent in court, provided that an employee will be paid for jury service, not to exceed 10 work days, and shall make every effort to cooperate with any request by the City Manager to request a delay in jury service to accommodate important department work in progress. Each employee receiving a notice to report for jury service shall immediately notify the City Manager or his or her designee. Whenever daily jury duty scheduling permits, the employee shall return to his/her regular daily job assignment to complete the employee’s regular daily work hours.

If an employee is called for jury service for more than 10 work days, the employee may request that the City Manager or his or her designee extend the time period for which the employee will be paid for jury service beyond the 10-

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 13 work day period. The City Manager or his or her designee shall not unreasonably refuse to grant any such request.

W. Workers’ Compensation Leave
Any employee who is receiving disability payments under the Workers’ Compensation Act of California (for on-the-job injuries sustained while engaged in the performance of the duties of any such position) shall receive from the City, during the first 30 calendar days of such disability absence, payments in an amount equal to the difference between the disability payments received under the Workers’ Compensation Act and the employee’s full salary. For the next 30 days of such disability absence, the employee shall receive from the City a payment in an amount equal to the difference between the disability payments received under the Workers’ Compensation Act and 75% of the employee’s salary. Such payments by the City shall be made without any deduction from accrued sick leave benefits. The City’s obligation to make such payments shall not commence until the third day of such disability absence.

X. Sabbatical Leave
In recognition of the fact that the job demands placed on participants in the Executive Pay Plan often preclude them from engaging in endeavors that would contribute to career development and personal development and would thus be of benefit to the City, participants are eligible to take a sabbatical leave for the purpose of said developmental activities. In addition to being of benefit to both the City and the employee, a sabbatical leave is viewed as a reward for good performance and years of service with the City. Sabbatical leave cannot be used for the following purposes: 1) parental or FMLA/CFRA related leave; 2) engaging in an income-generating activity; or 3) engaging in an outside activity that would be prohibited by the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

An employee is eligible for sabbatical leave at the conclusion of each seven years of service with the City. A sabbatical leave may be taken for a three-month to six-month period of time. Compensation for a sabbatical leave will be as follows: three months at full salary; more than three months up to six months at half salary. At the discretion of the City Manager, the sabbatical leave can be extended up to nine months at half salary. While on sabbatical leave, the employee shall remain on active status.

If an employee qualifies for a sabbatical leave by virtue of years of service, the employee shall submit a written proposal to the City Manager, outlining the purpose of said leave. If the operational needs of the employee's department and the City can still be met and provided that the employee's job performance is such that a sabbatical leave is merited, upon the approval of the City Manager, the employee will be allowed to take the sabbatical leave.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 14 If an employee leaves the employment of the City during a sabbatical leave, the employee must reimburse the City for all salary and benefits earned during the sabbatical leave up to the date of separation. Upon return to work following the conclusion of the sabbatical leave, the employee will be required to continue his or her employment with the City for at least one year (12 months). If the employee voluntarily terminates his or her employment during the one-year period following the conclusion of the sabbatical leave, the employee must reimburse the City for the full amount of the salary and benefits earned during the sabbatical leave. In addition, if it is later be determined that the sabbatical leave was used for a purpose that is prohibited under these provisions, the employee must reimburse the City for the full amount of the salary and benefits earned during the sabbatical leave. Any exceptions to these provisions will be at the discretion of the City Manager.

Y. Severance Pay
The City shall pay the employee severance pay in an amount equal to four months of the employee’s base bi-weekly salary upon his or her termination by the City. This severance pay shall be in addition to all accrued leave and other compensation that is subject to cash-out upon separation from City service. For the purposes of this Section, “termination by the City” means action by the City Manager to terminate the employee’s employment with the City. Severance pay required to be paid by this Section shall be paid within 10 calendar days of the employee’s last day on the City’s payroll. Severance pay shall not be required pursuant to this Section if the termination of the employee was the result of: 1) willful misconduct; 2) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 3) consistent poor performance in meeting specific objectives or performing the duties and responsibilities of his or her position; or 4) voluntary separation by the employee.

Z. Management Leave
Each employee is entitled to 24 hours of non-cashable management leave. The 24 hours of non-cashable management leave are available July 1st of each fiscal year. An employee must be on the payroll as of July 1st in order to be eligible to receive the 24 hours of non-cashable management leave for that fiscal year.

These 24 hours of non-cashable management leave cannot be carried over from year to year if not used within the fiscal year during which they accrue, nor shall the employee be compensated for unused non-cashable management leave hours at the end of the fiscal year. Any unused non-cashable management leave hours shall be forfeited at the end of the fiscal year.

Each employee is also entitled to eight hours of cashable management leave.

The eight hours of cashable management leave are available July 1st of each fiscal year. An employee must be on the payroll as of July 1st in order to receive the eight hours of cashable management leave. Payment equivalent to eight hours of the employee’s base salary as of June 30th shall be payable to the

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 15 employee, upon the request of the employee at the end of the fiscal year, if he or she has not used the cashable management leave hours.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A247CB0-6AB4-480C-81DE-4C8F5457B0F0 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Executive Pay Plan to be executed this day of 9/14/2020 2020.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ATTEST: a municipal corporation
By:

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN LANE DILG
City Clerk Interim City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GEORGE CARDONA
Interim City Attorney

EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN

PATTY WONG
EPP Participant
Executive Pay Plan | 2019--2020
Resolution No. 10965 (CCS)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: D_Sloan_CA_EmploymentAgreement_FINAL (revised) [Revision 1] (5137 : Appointment of City Attorney)

13.A
May 10, 2022
Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: May 10, 2022

13.A Recommendation to accept Marcy Kaplan's resignation from the Recreation and Parks Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

13.A
Packet Pg. 1627
1 Esterlina Lugo
To: Clerk Mailbox
Subject: RE: Resigning from recs and parks commission
From: Marcy Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:45 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Claudia Kompa <[email protected]>; Jeanette Gant <[email protected]> Subject: Resigning from recs and parks commission
Dear Councilmembers,
With mixed emotions I am reaching out tonight to submit my formal resignation to the Recreation and Parks Commission. It has been an extraordinary opportunity to work together with my fellow commissioners as well as dedicated staff to serve the city of Santa Monica.  I know this decision will open up space for a new commissioner who has more capacity to serve on the Commission and further engage Santa Monica residents to support and improve Rec and Parks.

Thank you all for your support and the opportunity to work together with you over the years. Looking forward to seeing you in the community and at the parks with my kids!
Please let me know if you need any additional information from me.

Best
Marcy Kaplan
Get Outlook for iOS

13.A.a
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Resignation Email_M.Kaplan (5115 : Rec&Parks Resignation M.Kaplan (5 mins))

13.B
May 10, 2022
Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: May 10, 2022

13.B Request of Councilmembers Negrete, de la Torre, and Brock that the City Manager schedule a study session as soon as practicable regarding whether to allow for the sale of nonmedicinal cannabis in the City of Santa Monica, as the City currently allows for the sale of medicinal cannabis. The study session shall include suggested Municipal Code changes, as well as options for City Council direction on potential locations, permitting process, social equity provisions to make legal cannabis business ownership and employment opportunities more accessible to low-income individuals and communities most impacted by the criminalization of cannabis, and any other regulatory restrictions as may be appropriate, including the maximum number of medicinal and nonmedicinal cannabis establishments in the City that are recommended. Finally, the study session shall also include municipal code changes that are necessary to allow for Cannabis-themed special events in specified locations in the City.

13.B
Packet Pg. 1629
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 2:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 13b.

EXTERNAL
With 2022 violent crimes at cannabis dispensaries making headlines, including recent armed robbery murders in Tarzana and Compton, this item seems tone‐deaf at best.

If you insist on pursuing it, confer with law enforcement, include a serious study of associated violent crime in the local region, and publicize those findings.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica  ‐ 90403
(former idyllic beach town, recently named one of the “least safe” cities in California) Item 13.B
05/10/22
1 of 1 Item 13.B
05/10/22

13.B.a
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Written Comments (5118 : Nonmedical cannabis sales)

13.C
May 10, 2022
Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: May 10, 2022

13.C Request of Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Brock and Davis that City Council suspend the meetings of the Housing Commission until City Council considers its annual appointments in June 2022. Once the Housing Commission resumes meeting following the appointments, it shall immediately hold elections for Chair and Vice Chair.

13.C
Packet Pg. 1631
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 13c.

EXTERNAL
Why is the Housing Commission being singled out?
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica  ‐ 90403
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
1 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) From: OZ
To: councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; [email protected]; David White; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich Cc: Jorge Casuso; Sam Catanzaro; Clara Harter; Emily Sawicki; Santa Monica Observer; Theresa Marasco; Gina Debaca; Michelle Gray; Dominic Gomez; Josh Hamilton; Leonora Camner; Denise AndersonWarren; Nikima Newsome Subject: Demand to remove unconstitutional item 13-C from 5/10/22 SM City Council meeting agenda Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 4:25:14 PM

EXTERNAL
This is to demand that item 13-C be removed from the 5/10/22 City Council agenda.

Please note that if the Council approves item 13-C, legal action against the City will be taken, and Bar Complaints will be filed against the two California attorneys sponsoring the item: Sue Himmelrich and Gleam Davis. "The Santa Monica City Charter gives the Council discretion to create advisory boards such as the Housing Commission, and to establish the powers and duties of all its advisory boards and commissions.

However, in order to exercise this discretion, the City Council would first have to amend the ordinances establishing and directing the Housing Commission.

And yet, even if the Council did all of that, item 13C would still be unethical, unlawful, abusive government overreach, because they are not simply attempting to suspend an advisory body. They are specifically attempting to suspend the current particular makeup of the Housing Commission, and the suspension’s end is predicated on the new appointments and new leadership. This is does not reflect the City Council attempting to change or improve the means by which they receive advice about housing in the City. It reflects the City Council attempting to influence the content of that advice. This violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which safeguard free speech and equal protection.

Again, this is unethical, unlawful, abusive government overreach stemming from private and political interests that conflict with the City’s welfare."
Source: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2022/05/09/opinion/mayor-himmelrichs-vendetta-against-housing-commission-after-husbandineligible-to-serve-due-to-anti-nepotism-policy/6748.html The full text of the article is enclosed below.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
By Olga Zurawska
Mayor Sue Himmelrich. Photo credit: Santa Monica Mirror Mayor Himmelrich's Vendetta Against
Housing Commission After Husband
Ineligible to Serve Due to Anti-Nepotism Policy
Tuesday's proposal to suspend Housing Commission meetings because special interests lost control is a stepping stone to dissolve the Commission altogether.

Amid an affordable housing and
homelessness crisis, why would the
City want to suspend all meetings of
the Housing Commission "until City
Council considers its annual
appointments in June 2022" (May 10,
2022 agenda item 13C)? And why are
the Mayor and Councilmembers
insisting that "once the Housing
Commission resumes meeting
following the appointments, it shall
immediately hold elections for Chair
and Vice Chair"? Those elections are
already compulsory per Council
Resolution 11337 (CCS) and Housing
Commission bylaws; mentioning the
elections in item 13C on Tuesday's
Council agenda only underscores the
Mayor's and Councilmembers Davis's
and Brock's focus on changing the
Housing Commission leadership.
"What in the world is going on?" you
might ask.

Why the sudden need to suspend all
ShareTweet 0 Comments
May 9, 2022
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
2 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) meetings of one of the most important City commissions? And has the Council suspended the meetings of any City board or commission before without a valid reason? Better still, has any board or commission had their meetings suspended because the City Council does not like the leadership? Are we looking at censorship here? Is there a precedent for this? Wait--does the Council even have the authority to suspend a commission's meetings?
Let's start with the last question.

The Santa Monica City Charter gives the Council discretion to create advisory boards such as the Housing Commission, and to establish the powers and duties of all its advisory boards and commissions.

However, in order to exercise this discretion, the City Council would first have to amend the ordinances establishing and directing the Housing Commission.

And yet, even if the Council did all of that, item 13C would still be unethical, unlawful, abusive government overreach, because they are not simply attempting to suspend an advisory body. They are specifically attempting to suspend the current particular makeup of the Housing Commission, and the suspension’s end is predicated on the new appointments and new leadership. This is does not reflect the City Council attempting to change or improve the means by which they receive advice about housing in the City. It reflects the City Council attempting to influence the content of that advice. This violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which safeguard free speech and equal protection.

Again, this is unethical, unlawful, abusive government overreach stemming from private and political interests that conflict with the City’s welfare.

That’s it. That’s the answer.

The proposal to suspend Housing Commission meetings is another example of abuse of power by Mayor Himmelrich, the initiator of item 13C? (We have seen the Mayor successfully push for the unlawful reappointment of Renee Buchanan to this very Commission last year, with the support of Councilmember Gleam Davis. That unlawful reappointment had to be reversed later upon public outrage and complaints to the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Manager. No acknowledgement of error or an apology was issued by the Mayor, Council members or City Clerk Anderson-Warren, who had allowed the original unlawful reappointment.)
There is no precedent for suspending a single board or commission until new annual appointments. For good reason, because the City Council is supposed to receive advice from boards and commissions, not influence or censor the advice they give.

But if the City Council approves item 13C on Tuesday, it will have a chilling effect on every resident who volunteers their time and skills to serve on a City board, task force, or commission. The advisory bodies will continue their work in fear of being suspended should the City Council not like what they say or how they say it. How is that not censorship and suppression of free speech? How is that not complete disregard for the diverse public input of Santa Monicans? Ah, reasons. Let's talk about what the real motivation for sponsoring this unprecedented move by the Council might be.

For the Mayor, who initiated item 13C, this is a personal vendetta for her husband, Michael Soloff, having to obey the City's new anti-nepotism policy that rendered him ineligible to remain on the Housing Commission.

As soon as Santa Monica's anti-nepotism policy was first proposed in July of last year, and for several months until it became effective, Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Davis subjected the Housing Commission to a variety of political games trying to retain control of the Commission. In an attempt to delay new appointments by Change Slate Councilmembers Brock, De la Torre, and Parra, the annual appointments, originally scheduled for late June, did not happen until December.

Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Davis also orchestrated appointing Theresa Marasco to a different seat on the Commission than the one she had applied to, so that special designated seat would remain open for their lackey on the Commission, Renee Buchanan. Then they orchestrated the unlawful "reappointment" of Buchanan to the Commission despite insufficient votes, in violation of procedure, in an attempt to maintain their power. Buchanan is widely considered a puppet of special interests and was then Housing Commission Chair.)
Ultimately this effort failed; the Council had to redo the appointments in a lawful manner and Buchanan was gone. Marasco was appointed to the seat she had applied for and is now the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission. The remaining seats on the Commission were not filled until January 2022. This half year delay weakened the Commission, weakening it for half of the fiscal year. All because Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Davis wanted to hold on to their control by proxy of the Commission.

Now let us look at the Mayor's fluctuating feelings regarding the Housing Commission.

The extent of Mayor Himmelrich's trauma over her husband having to obey the new City anti-nepotism policy was on full display on February 22, the night City Council attempted to remove Leonora Camner from the Housing Commission amid allegations of conflict of interest. Mayor Himmelrich, a self-professed supporter of slow growth, stunned everybody with an over the top recusal worthy of a soap opera, complete with quivering chin.
"I'll be recusing from item 13-G. This has been very painful for me. I want you to know this whole thing. I believe that this Council mistreated my husband to advance the political agendas of various of its members when it refused to let him serve out his term on the Housing Commission. Because of that, I
have become personally embroiled in this controversy and have a strong bias around this item, that I can't separate from my personal feelings, which are very strong and very hurt, and I am therefore Item 13.C
05/108/2022
3 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) recusing myself from this matter. Thank you." (Emphasis added) Now, in a surprising turn of events, it appears that the Mayor has suddenly recovered from the trauma of her husband having to leave the Housing Commission, and is able to request that same Commission's suspension from an unbiased perspective. This is even more odd considering her husband went before the Council a year ago to advocate for the Housing Commission to be allowed to resume its normal monthly meetings despite other commissions holding quarterly meetings, due to the large amount of work and responsibility of the Housing Commission. Soloff, then Commission Chair, said to the Council:
"I'm addressing the issue of how often we're going to be allowed to meet moving forward from this point.

At our last meeting we voted seven nothing to urge the council to permit us to resume our normal operations. Affordable housing is one of the key issues in the City right now. We're faced with the idea of coming up with 6158 additional housing units, we have to get homeless folks into temporary and permanent housing, and we have to keep our residents housed who are under severe rent burden shortage.... and we can't do that work for you unless we're allowed to meet.... We strongly urge that you authorize us to resume our normal operations. We challenge you to show that you're seriously committed to affordable housing in the City." (Emphasis added) The Council considered the input offered by the Mayor's husband, confirmed with City Clerk AndersonWarren that the Housing Commission was adequately staffed, and in recognition of the important work the Housing Commission is tasked with, allowed it to resume monthly meetings.

That was a year ago.

With the Mayor's husband now gone from the Commission, and power squarely in the hands of the Change-Slate-appointed majority on the Commission, the Mayor has done an about face, deciding the Housing Commission's work is no longer that important.

As for Councilmember Davis, she (and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan) represents the interests of Santa Monica Forward (SMF) on the dais. Both of their 2020 re-election campaigns were supported by a SMF Political Action Committee. (McCowan is poised to once again benefit from the support of SMF in her bid for re-election this fall.) And they both participated in the discussion and vote on a Council item that sought to remove Leonora Camner from the Housing Commission amid allegations of a conflict of interest. They should have recused themselves. Why? It so happens that Ms. Camner serves on the steering committee of SMF-the very organization that helped Davis and McCowan get on the Council....

See how this works?
Camner is likely not going to be reappointed to the Housing Commission in July as she is persona non grata in the City, and Councilmember Davis--Camner's ally--will lose her own influence by proxy on the Commission with Camner's departure in July. With the current Change Slate appointments to the Housing Commission, Councilmember Davis and her mothership, SMF, cannot push their agenda through the Commission any more, and won't be able to again until they can appoint one of their lackeys to the Commission. How convenient then that item 13C moves to suspend all Housing Commission business until new appointments are made. It is in Davis's and SMF's private interests to suspend the Commission until July, when they hope to regain power on the Commission through new annual appointments, diluting or taking away the power the Slate Change appointees enjoy now.

Now to Councilmember Brock. Some are shocked to see his name next to Himmelrich's and Davis's as sponsors of the attempt to gag the Housing Commission, whose majority Brock helped appoint. They should not be. In a city government where ethics is optional, this kind of flip-flopping is common practice.

We don't know what the deal is, but it must be really valuable to Brock if he is willing to embarrass himself so badly in front of the community who voted for him to reduce, not support, the influence of special interests in the City. Is it about yet another threat of a Brown Act investigation that Brock might not want to undergo, or is it about something entirely different? Whatever it is, it is yet another deal in a sea of questionable deals that Brock is swimming in instead of standing with his spine fully erect.

Elected in 2020 along with Parra and de la Torre as members of the Change Slate, Brock has displayed his greatest weakness--a penchant for cutting deals in an effort to people-please--since day one. When he assumed office, he did not assert himself for selection as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, relinquishing considerable power. As a result, we ended up with two representatives of special interests in Council leadership positions. Brock's cowering to the old guard on the Council, and especially to Himmelrich, has continued ever since. So much for his promises to engage in "fighting against an entrenched establishment."
By putting his name on the unethical Council item 13C scheduled for Tuesday, Brock is abandoning the Change Slate's own appointees on the Housing Commission, instead of protecting them. He is showing where his true allegiance lies--with whomever is most beneficial at the moment.

Such flip-flopping does not garner support for a politician, and Brock's stock has been going down for months now. Residents' disappointment is palpable. Unable to affect real change on the Council, he is now eager to clip the wings of his own appointees on the Housing Commission because they ruffled the feathers of the very special interests he once vowed to fight.

This decision to undermine his own appointees, much less an entire City Commission, suggests that while Phil Brock might be the leader of the Change Slate, Mayor Himmelrich is the leader of Phil Brock, and that is why he signed on to item 13C.

So Himmelrich has been offended and hurt since her husband had to obey the new anti-nepotism policy and leave the housing Commission. Davis does not like it that her ally on the Commission, Leonora Camner, is a lame duck now and on her way out. Both Himmelrich and Davis have been unhappy with the new Housing Commission, and threatened by it since the Change Slate took Himmelrich's and Davis's power away by appointing to the Commission four citizens not affiliated with special interests. The Item 13.C
05/108/2022
4 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) discomfort is so deep that they prefer to gag the new Housing Commission until they can make the annual appointments in July in hopes of regaining power. Phil Brock, who never was able to assert the Change Slate's power on the Council, likely has cut another deal with "the entrenched establishment" he had previously vowed to fight in exchange for his gagging and throwing his own Housing Commission appointees under the bus.

But why NOW?
The upcoming vote on the suspension of the Housing Commission meetings until July when new appointments are made and a new Commission leadership is selected was immediately precipitated by a convenient, if ridiculous distraction--former Housing Commission Chair Richard Hilton's abrupt resignation from his position, then denial that he resigned, then admission that he resigned, then full throated doubling down on his previous denial that he had resigned...and his crying "Injustice!" to well placed friends and acquaintances all over town.

Former Chair Hilton resigned his position as Chair in a signed, handwritten fax sent to the City on March 16, 2022. The letter began:
"I'm resigning as Chair of the City of Santa Monica Housing Commission, please have the Vice Chair, Theresa Marasco, serve as the Presiding Officer for the meeting tomorrow, March 17, 2022." Hilton's resignation was appropriately announced at the beginning of the Commission meeting the next day, he was thanked for his service as Chair, and it was announced that a selection of new Chair would be conducted at the next Commission meeting in April. There was no objection or comment from Hilton himself, Staff Liaison Kemper, or any Commission member. However, Hilton changed his mind the next day and started claiming he had not resigned. During a 90-minute teleconference with City Manager David White and Councilmember Brock he confirmed his resignation. Then he changed his mind again....

Shortly after his selection as Chair, Hilton's behavior became problematic. Apart from several procedural errors, the issue of abusing his power came into light. According to Vice Chair Marasco, Hilton dominated the Work Plan Subcommittee, imposed his draft of the Work Plan on the Subcommittee, ignored Marasco's input altogether, and presented his own draft of the Work plan to the Commission as if it was the result of the collaborative work of the entire Subcommittee. Hilton's Work Plan entirely ignored issues that residents had brought before the Commission for years, and which Marasco advocated to be reflected in the Work Plan.

Additionally, Hilton unilaterally assigned all Work Plan tasks to the three Subcommittee members, disenfranchising the rest of the Commission for the remainder of the year. Then, according to Marasco, Hilton publicly misrepresented the number of meetings and hours the Subcommittee worked, and misrepresented multiple facts about the Subcommittee process to the entire Commission during the public meeting. It does not stop there. Hilton has made false, disparaging statements to community members about Marasco and a member of the public who called in to the March Commission meeting to comment on the misrepresentation of facts by then-Chair Hilton as apparent at the public meeting.

Throughout all these problems with Commissioner Hilton, including the ever-changing status of his resignation, City staff first ignored Marasco in her role as Vice Chair, then refused to offer the assistance that they had availed to Hilton, and eventually stopped communicating with her when she became Acting Chair due to Hilton's resignation. Vice Chair Marasco pushed back against Hilton's misconduct and, repeatedly gaslit and ignored, eventually escalated her concerns to more senior City staff. However, that staff refused to do their jobs and protect this Commissioner from both Hilton's harmful behavior and housing staffs' refusal to do their own jobs of administratively supporting the Housing Commission.

And so turmoil escalated. Vice Chair Marasco continues to pursue remedies for both Hilton's and City staff's misconduct, Hilton continues to cry wolf, and City staff continue to ignore Vice Chair Marasco's efforts to uphold an ethical and productive Housing Commission. Gossip has spread, creating a conveniently distracting pretext for suspending Housing Commission meetings until new appointments are made--"there's too much drama".

Of course, that's not what item 13C says. But it's what Councilmembers have said privately, while also raising the specters of recalls and dismantling the Housing Commission entirely. So despite the fact that City staff and Mayor Himmelrich have claimed that the issue of whether Hilton is Chair or not is solely the business of the Commission, Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Davis and Brock are now trying to make that resolution impossible--and moot--by bypassing the remaining meetings of the current Housing Commission entirely. Score one for kakocracy.

So, here we are now. The high drama caused by a health impaired Commissioner opened the door for the "entrenched establishment" to jump on the opportunity to gag the new Housing Commission by suspending its meetings. It is a convenient cover for their real motivation, which is to incapacitate the new Commission until Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Davis can attempt to populate it with their special-interest lackeys again in July, or dissolve it altogether if they feel like it, thus depriving the public volunteers the opportunity to directly participate in City housing concerns. And the Change Slate leader, Phil Brock, is there to help them carry out this destructive plan. Tune in to the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 10, to see your elected representatives abuse their power to advance their personal agendas--again.

Editor's Note:

To submit comments to Council item 13C send an email to: [email protected] This article has been updated at 12:15pm on May 9, 2020 to reflect new information from the Santa Monica City Attorney's office.

Item 13.C
05/108/2022
5 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Susan Cola; David White Subject: Item 13 C

EXTERNAL
Please remove the item
and let the Housing Commission proceed as provided by and according to the Charter rules.

I have heard how "disastrous the last meeting was".. I was on it ‐ it was a well run meeting and considering Michele was
thrown in at the last minute and new to the commission I thought she did a professional and diplomatic job.

I am sorry to see the game being played here.. the minute a commission  actually has people with real and recent experience ‐ willing to work for free for this City to try and get something done ‐ the powers that be‐ decide to dismantle it. I have to wonder if the three recent appointments had been men if this would have happened.

I am so sorry to see these games.
'
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
6 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gina Debaca <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Subject: 13C OPPOSE Suspension of Housing Commissio

EXTERNAL
Council item 13‐C
I am opposing the suspension of
The Housing Commission
Hello Council‐members,
I oppose the suspension of Housing Commission meetings until the annual appointments.

This item seems to be politically motivated.

It targets the current leadership of the Commission.

It violates the right to free speech.

I urge you to vote NO on item 13C.

Sincerely,
Thank You,
Gina DeBaca
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
7 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan
Cc: David White; Ann Maggio Thanawalla
Subject: Item 13-C May 10 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Sue, Gleam and Phil,
Bring it!
Bring on your ABUSE OF POWER!
Bring it!
Bring on your Action to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments! Bring it!
I watched the last Housing Commission Meeting and despitethe unexplained absence of staff participation, and
Richard Hilton's sudden Chair Resignation the day prior, and
the set up of Vice Chair Marasco
intended to command that she learn to run & operate Verizon's BlueJeans and
Chair the meeting...

Despite all that -
that meeting ran just as smoothly as any meeting Mike Soloff ever ran.

Bring it.

Bring on your Action to Manipulate Viewpoints!
Bring it!
Bring on your shut down of newly appointed representatives input and agenda items that challenge your political narratives!
Bring it!
Bring it followed by leadership appointees whose agency comes from money or through your hand up their backs!
Bring it!
Bring it!
Bring it!
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
8 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 2 And we will wring it, wring it, wring it!

Bar Complaints against the council lawyers!
...Landing in the hands of recent Interim City Attorney, Joe Lawrence.

Ann Maggio Thanawalla
23 yr resident of Santa Monica
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein Item 13.C
05/108/2022
9 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: M S <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis
Subject: Item 13C - re proposed suspension of Housing Commission Meetings

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
Please remove Item 13C from the agenda for the May 10th, 2022 meeting, and failing that removal, do please do not vote to suspend any of the Housing Commission meetings. They must remain monthly. There is too much critically important and urgent work that needs to be done. I urge each councilmember to think this through very carefully before the council embarrasses itself in the eyes of Santa Monicans (stakeholders, voters and taxpayers); before the County of Los Angeles, the State of California, and on the international stage. If this action is allowed, it will stain the City of Santa Monica with yet another easily preventable, timeconsuming and shameful scandal, and forestall the slew of official actions, letters, complaints, and lawsuits that inevitably will come with it's passing. It boggles the mind that there are so many valid reasons and solid arguments to remove this item, or failing that, to vote down the motion. Once all the nuance, facts, data points, and converging events leading to the birth of this agenda item are fully known, and contextualized, people from all walks of life I have discussed this matter with, clearly see why this must be removed from the agenda, or failing that, voted down. What follows is an incomplete list of these reaons:

1. It is unconstitutional, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, the right to free speech and equal protection.

2. It flies in the face of what constituents a healthy functional participatory democracy.

3. LA County/Santa Monica/California leads the country in lack of affordable housing and homelessness.

We cannot afford to lose ANY time working on these critical matters.  “A new poll Thursday from the University of California, Berkeley found that Californians are most concerned about housing affordability and the homeless crisis. The poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 31% of respondents thought housing affordability was the most important issue California needs to address, followed up closely by homelessness at 29%.” (https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/new-poll-finds-california-voters-mostconcerned-about-housing-affordability, First published on April 15, 2022,)

4. It is extreme and draconian on the face of it. It is a thinly veiled attempt at autocratic rule, camouflaged as part of a “democratic process“. It is a blatant and brazen power grab by council members doing the bidding of the City’s status quo corporate special interests.

5. It is an obvious act of retaliation against the unprecedented number of change slate appointed housing commission members, simply for committing the sin/taboo of breaking new ground towards reforming and holding accountable the Santa Monica Housing Authority and other entities and individuals who create Santa Monica's multi-faceted housing policies. These commissioners are courageously fighting together with a unified voice against entrenched special interests that have historically dictated Santa Monica’s housing policies and politics. The 200-pound gorilla that has always been in the room is FINALLY being poked and told to behave. And it is outraged at this.

6. The Housing Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. Not the other way around. By attempting to control the composition of the Housing Commission, the City Council would be exerting control over the agenda, and content produced and passed by the commission. These actions would be based on the political and personal ideologies of specific councilmembers who are aligned with special interests, not based on the material housing needs of Santa Monica’s diverse range of residents.

Item 13.C
05/108/2022
10 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission) 2 7. It is important to point out that out of all the councilmembers, the three sponsors of this item, are the wealthiest members of the City Council. I am told they are the only millionaires on the dais. They and their family are certainly safe and secure in their own permanent housing. The three sponsors are revealing themselves to be the exact opposite demographic of who would benefit from the existence of the current Housing Commission. And the maximum number of meetings. With this item placed on the agenda, these individuals who happen to be caucasian and senior citizens as well, reveal themselves as living inside a bubble of wealth and privilege, so out of touch with the struggles of the poor, workingclass, and barely middle class, that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so harmful to the welfare of the city and the democratic process itself. It reveals that they are so out of touch with this demographic, that they are completely blind to what constitutes victories for reform and bettering the human condition for ordinary non-wealthy people. So much so, that they see the exact opposite: chaos, unacceptable "drama". Well of course it’s chaos and dramatic, that is, to the status quo and the historically entrenched agenda of the neoliberal corporate establishment. While there is certainly nothing wrong with being wealthy, there is something wrong when that wealth blinds city officials to the needs and struggles of the non-wealthy. One wonders the degree of bias these councilmembers actually have against those in lower economic classes.

8. Mayor Himmelrich should continue to honor her husband and former Housing commission chair, Michael Soloff’s wishes and detailed reasoning, when he recently wrote an impassioned public comment to this City Council, imploring that the Housing Commission meetings return to monthly.

9. How can Phil Brock continue to say he cares so deeply about the residents desperately seeking affordable housing, including the unhoused, when he attempts to railroad the commissioners he appointed for that very purpose.

10. Certain members of this City Council, their allies, and the interests they represent are terrified that this Housing Commission has invited a federal HUD official and other guest experts to the Housing Commission meeting. The concept of oversight and accountability in general and for the Santa Monica Housing Authority, in particular, terrifies them.

There are so many other reasons that should be included here, I implore City Council members to read all of the other public comments submitted about this item.

Thank you for considering my public comment.

Michael Louis
Item 13.C
05/108/2022
11 of 11 Item 13.C
05/108/2022

13.C.a
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Written Comments (5133 : Temporarily suspend Housing Commission)

13.D
May 10, 2022
Council Meeting: May 10, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: May 10, 2022

13.D Request of Councilmember Brock that the City Manager return with a Study Session on an expedited basis with a report on the status of existing safety and security of the Third Street Promenade, parking garages, and surrounding areas in downtown Santa Monica including potential options to enhance the safety and security of residents, workforce, and visitors.

13.D
Packet Pg. 1643
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:11 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/10/2022 agenda item 13D

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
Councilmember Brock's agenda item 13D purports to want to study the safety situation in downtown Santa Monica, but we already know the outcome he wants: the dissolution of the DTSM board and replacing the downtown safety ambassadors with an armed private security force accountable solely to the landlords of DTSM. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2022/May‐ 2022/05_02_2022_Brock_Calls_for_Get_Tough_Approach_to_Homeless_Problem.html This is completely morally bankrupt and it's absolutely shocking that this is a proposal being floated by a sitting councilmember. A private armed goon squad tasked with "dealing with" the homeless situation downtown is a license for violence against both the homeless and anyone else the armed private security deems to be a problem. 13D should be pulled from tomorrow's agenda. We should not be wasting city time and resources when we know it's going through the motions to tee up a predetermined outcome: Phil's frightening and morally bankrupt vision for downtown.

Item 13.D
05/10/22
Item 13.D
05/10/22
Item 13.D
05/10/22
1 of 2 Item 13.D
05/10/22

13.D.a
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Written Comments (5134 : Study Session on security of the Promenade) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 13d.

EXTERNAL
Not sufficient. The “existing safety and security of the Third Street Promenade, parking garages, and surrounding areas in downtown Santa Monica” absolutely sucks and has for far too long. Same with public safety throughout the City.

Anyone on the Council or in the City Attorney's Office who doesn’t recognize this by now is clinging to the wrong job.

SMPD publicly estimated 40% of their arrests involve homeless individuals. The City’s failed policies have marked Santa Monica as a soft target for opportunistic criminal invaders, including (as arrest statistics demonstrate) among an increasingly unhinged homeless population.

Enough studying. Take action. No more thugs on drugs.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica  ‐ 90403
(former idyllic beach town, recently named one of the “least safe” cities in California) Item 13.D
05/10/22
2 of 2 Item 13.D
05/10/22

13.D.a
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Written Comments (5134 : Study Session on security of the Promenade) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Written Public Comment
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

14.A
Packet Pg. 1646
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jivanto van Hemert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Restore staffing at SM PAL

EXTERNAL
May 2022
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Esteemed City Councilmembers, and City Staff, PAL has been a significant positive impact in my– and countless others' lives. Their ability to continue this service through a global pandemic– a time of undeniable increased need and difficulty– is a testament to the dedication of the team there. Thus, it was particularly unfortunate that PAL’s staff was so severely reduced during the height of the pandemic. Even though PAL already have a small team, it was cut by half and yet this resilient staff continued their service to our community. It is my sincere hope that you vote to restore PAL staffing during this budget cycle.

What I affectionately call, “my PAL story” begins more than a decade ago as an impressionable six-yearold. I began exclusively within Santa Monica PAL’s martial arts program, and my involvement only grew exponentially from there. I quickly became one of the youngest members of the Youth Leadership Council, and I sustained and expanded my involvement into high school when I quickly became involved in YLC leadership; serving as both Trustee and President. PAL quickly became a major part of my life, and soon most major holidays became incomplete without a celebration at PAL. Every Halloween from 2 years old to college was spent with SMPAL at Barker Hanger; first as a participant, and then for many years as a volunteer. It was here that I first learned the value of giving back to a community that has given you so much.

Santa Monica PAL became a central part of my life, and continuously influenced my experiences from an early age—I also became involved in the California PAL Youth Directors’ Council on which I served as a board member for nearly 4 years, during which time I had the opportunity to represent PAL and my state to both congressional representatives and other leaders from across the country. During my time with the board, I was able to work with staff and peers from across the state to host numerous successful events including Youth Leadership Academy and Life After High School.

While my time working directly within PAL dwindled once I moved across the country for college, the impact PAL has had on me remains. I clearly see the effects of my PAL experience on every aspect of my life and as an educator working with college students I continue to see the positive impact programs like PAl can have on students. Looking back, the Marathon Running program has given me the stamina to thrive in life after PAL both physically and mentally– after running a marathon long days of meetings suddenly seem far less difficult. The opportunities afforded me because of PAL’s programs continue to serve me well. I firmly believe that PAL will always have a place in my life, and I’ve already experienced the impact of my time with PAL time and again
Item 14
05/10/22
1 of 2 Item 14
05/10/22

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: Written Comments (5139 : Written Public Comment) 2 PAL needs a Community Services Coordinator and As-Needed temporary staff to properly supervise youth, as well as to restore PAL’s college-bound and leadership programs to pre-pandemic levels. PAL would also be able to reopen the Fitness Gym at Virginia Avenue Park, which has been closed since March 2020. PAL’s free fitness program, particularly in boxing and karate, gives youth a mechanism for aggression to be channeled in a positive and constructive way.

It is my hope that you see the necessity of fully restoring PAL’s staffing. Other cities throughout the nation are desperately trying to create what the City of Santa Monica already has. I am asking the city to value and respect the PAL program as I do and restore the staff necessary to keep PAL a fully functioning, and enviable City service.

Sincerely,
Jivanto
‐‐
Jivanto P. van Hemert, MBA, M.Ed
JI-VAWN-toh VAN HEY-mert
Pronouns: He, Him, His To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

A button with "Hear my
name" text for name
playback in email
signature
[email protected]
Cell: 310.773.6112
Item 14
05/10/22
2 of 2 Item 14
05/10/22

14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Written Comments (5139 : Written Public Comment)