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.
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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – RÉSUMÉ
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
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B ATTACHMENT B – CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C ATTACHMENT C – TENANT HISTORY AND NEWSPAPER ADS
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C 1962 Newspaper Ads. Los Angeles Times, various dates.
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C 1962 California Voter Registration. Ancestry.com.
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D ATTACHMENT D – SANBORN MAPS
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D 1950 Sanborn Map, showing subject property outlined in red. LAPL.
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E ATTACHMENT E – EXAMPLE WORK OF SAMUEL REISBORD
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment F ATTACHMENT F – PUBLIC COMMENTS
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.
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
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
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.
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
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)
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
19BLD-0223
03/07/19