P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451
[email protected]
1 Ostashay & Associates
consulting
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 12/31/2021 From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC
Re: Peer Review: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard Overview
This memorandum (memo) has been prepared at the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, City Planning Division (the City). The purpose of the memo is to provide a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report entitled Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal dated December 30 2020, that was prepared by GPA Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property.
On April 27, 2020, the applicant, H. Joseph Soleiman with Mid Century SV LP, submitted a Landmark Designation Application for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property prepared by GPA Consulting on behalf of the property owner. At the request of the City, a peer review of the landmark application was prepared by Jan Ostashay of OAC (dated October 5, 2020), who found the application’s assessment of the property lacking sufficient evidence and compelling arguments to support the proposed landmark designation. The City’s Landmarks Commission reviewed the landmark application, peer review assessment, staff report, and public comments during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0119). Upon deliberation, the Commission motioned to deny the application based on the information provided in the staff report and the peer review. The motion was unanimously approved by the commissioners of the Landmarks Commission.
An appeal of the denial made by the Landmarks Commission was filed on October 22, 2020, and an updated landmark assessment report was prepared by GPA Consulting in response to the Commission’s motion made at their October 2020 hearing. The updated landmark assessment report has been peer reviewed by OAC and OAC’s findings are discussed herein this memo. In summary, OAC agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and architecture merit. It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy any of the necessary Landmark criteria and, therefore, is ineligible for recognition as a City Landmark.
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 2 Methodology
To complete this peer review memo, Ms. Ostashay completed the following tasks:
• Reviewed the initial Landmark Designation Application material (May 27, 2020) and also reviewed the updated Landmark Assessment Report for the subject property dated December 30, 2020 prepared by GPA Consulting. Also reviewed the associated Appeal Form filed with the City dated October 22, 2020.
• Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, 2018 Historic Context Statement (HCS), 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update, San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment (2015), San Vicente Apartments Courtyard Housing Study (2009), and other prior city-sponsored historic resources surveys and survey updates. OAC also reviewed other related survey material prepared in association with SurveyLA, which was a City of Los Angeles sponsored project. • Reviewed the staff report, public comment, and minutes of the Landmark Commission hearing of October 12, 2020, at which the subject property was reviewed and considered by the Commission for Landmark designation. Also listened to the audio transcript of the Landmarks Commission hearing of October 12, 2020 via the City’s website. • Conducted additional research on the history of the subject property; its original owner/builder and architect; physical alterations; and past owners and occupants. In addition, reviewed archival material associated with the subject property and architect on file with the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). The UCSB repository maintains the Samuel Reisbord papers, which includes architectural drawings, information on projects he worked on, and associated personal ephemeral material. The extent of the research conducted by OAC was limited to what was necessary to assess the validity of the evaluation findings presented in the updated assessment report.
• Reviewed relevant published National Park Service (NPS) guidance on evaluating the significance of potential historic properties. These bulletins and guidelines help to provide understanding and clarity in the application of the significance criteria for evaluation, development of appropriate historic contexts, and assessing historical integrity to those properties under consideration for potential landmark eligibility. The use of these publications is standard professional industry practice, and helps to disseminate the essential information gathered to make a sound and justifiable evaluation of historical significance. • Also searched the National Register of Historic Places online database, the City’s online sources, and OAC’s in-house library for any properties evaluated or designated for similar reasons as those outlined in the application and assessment report, i.e. association with multi-family residential development, architecture and aesthetics, master architect, etc. • Analyzed the assessment findings and researched presented in the application’s updated landmark assessment report for validity, clarity, and conformance with the basic professional principles and best practices for evaluating the significance of potential historic properties. • Summarized the results of all of the tasks listed above within this memo.
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 3 Landmark Designation Application and AssessmentReport The original Landmark Designation Application, dated April 27, 2020, for the apartment building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard consisted of a Landmark designation application form along with supporting attachments (attachment “A” describing the property, attachment “B” providing a statement of architectural significance and the identification of character-defining features, attachment “C” the bibliography, attachment “D” photographs of the property, and attachment “E” building permit history). This is the document the Landmarks Commission reviewed and considered at their hearing October 12, 2020, for which they deliberated and denied the landmark application.
An updated Landmark assessment report, dated December 30, 2020, was prepared as a response to the Commission’s findings to deny designation of the subject property as a City Landmark and which the appeal is supported. The updated Landmark assessment report includes an executive summary, introduction, methodology statement on the tasks performed, identification of prior evaluations of the subject property, development of a historic context with associated themes presented, a property description narrative (architectural description, construction history, ownership and tenant history), application of City Landmark criteria and evaluation for local landmark designation, analysis of historical integrity, identification of character-defining features, a conclusionary statement, and bibliography. The assessment report also includes several supporting attachments (resume of evaluator, current photographs, tenant history and newspaper advertisements, Sanborn Maps, earlier newspaper accounts of architect Samuel Reisbord’s work (1940s-1950s), public comments in support of the property’s landmarking, and building permit history.
Peer Review Assessment
OAC has peer reviewed the updated landmark assessment report prepared by GPA related to the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard for overall adequacy and the property’s potential local Landmark eligibility. The peer review analysis by OAC of the property’s potential historic significance, evaluation of historical integrity, and assessment findings for historical designation under the established City Landmark criteria is presented as follows.
Construction History, Alterations, Integrity Assessment The subject property is a large multi-family residential building designed with a rectangular shaped plan that is centered around a series of small interior courtyards. The three-story structure was completed in 1961 and was finalized for occupancy by the City in the summer of 1962. It was built with a semi-subterranean garage accessed at ground floor level with 36 units on the upper floors. An in-ground swimming pool was also added in 1962 and is offset at the southwest corner of the parcel within the front setback behind a curving brick wall. Because of its design and elevated placement on the lot, many of the building features, such as the entry lobby area and staircase, multi-level interior open courtyards, internal open-air bridging corridors (walkways), fenestration, integrated planters, and front entries to the apartment units are not visible from the public rights-of-way. The building complex was designed by architect Samuel Reisbord and built by Los Angeles-based Lyons Construction Company for then owners Joseph and Leo Lyons (who owned and operated Lyons Construction).
The apartment building, called “The Imperial,” exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 4 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” MidCentury Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The smooth stucco surfaces, clean rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows, slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing, integrated parking, flat roof with light wells, and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior courtyard featurestypifies this style. The building’s only readily visible detailing, outside of the original moniker sign that reads “Imperial Apartments” in period scripted font, occurs on the front façade with a series of solids to voids that include extended balconies, plain stucco wall surfaces, engaged stucco planter boxes set below windows, and the flat roof overhang with wide geometric fascia board trim at the upper eave line. An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured rows of long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that spanned the entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and engaged plastered planter boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature; however, is no longer extant on the building, but for the single remaining fascia board trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has greatly impacted the architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent.
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the UCSB campus as well as the extant fascia board at the front eave line, this unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s overall design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical façade. In reading the permit history on file with the City, this series of decorative fascia trim boards were most likely damaged and removed following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the earthquake the City’s emergency response teams began conducting building inspections throughout the community. The building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes on the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural engineer stated the building had severe racking of walls with obvious severe damage and distress. The property was then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1, 1994, the building was re-inspected with field notes that stated the anchor bolts on the building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The “ornamental wall face at front of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to expose additional anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia boards were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had displaced, but posed no immediate hazard. Among other details, the inspector further noted that the west (side) wall had moved three (3) inches and that the anchor bolts were cracked and had cracked the concrete walls in some places. Upon concluding the second inspection, the building was issued a “green tag” and in the coming months was stabilized and repaired, as required.
Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible from the public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century Modern stylistic design intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front elevation at grade level is now dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the driveway leading into the parking garage, and the nondescript solid curving brick wall that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and rear elevations of the structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by flush set aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails (there are also integrated carports at the rear elevation accessed from the alley). In consideration of the prior alterations made to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. It is also OAC’s professional opinion that the property’s historical integrity of design, material, PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 5 workmanship, and feeling has also been affected. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA landmark assessment report that the property retains all seven qualities of integrity.
Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s…historic period.”1 A property eligible for local designation must satisfy the applicable significance criteria and should retain enough of its historic character and original appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource. The seven qualities or aspects of historical integrity are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Landmark Findings
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts.
Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City.
Pursuant to Section 9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a City Landmark if it satisfies one or more of the following six criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 1 National Register Bulletin No 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, 1995).
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 6 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical style valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The peer review of the updated landmark assessment report findings for City of Santa Monica Landmark eligibility is as follows:
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant under Criterion 1 for symbolizing the larger citywide trend of increased density and the early results of the change in the City’s zoning ordinance in 1959, which allowed for the area to resemble what it is today. GPA also found the property to be significant as a unique example of the courtyard apartment development trend and as an example of a transitional property type built following the changes in the City’s 1959 zoning ordinance. The GPA assessment furthers argues that the subject property represents an important aspect of this period in the neighborhood’s architectural history.
The eligibility standards of the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement indicate that multifamily residential properties eligible under Criterion 1 may be significant as the site of an important event in history; for exemplifying an important trend, pattern, or type of multi-family residential development; or as an early rare, or excellent example of a multi-family residential property type.2 The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-World War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to 2 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019).
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 7 its primary (front, south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not appear to satisfy the tenets of Criterion 1. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark assessment report that the property appears significant under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant under Criterion 2 for its “uniquely designed interior courtyard.” The interior courtyard space is lit by a number of light wells that pierce the center portion of the flat roof of the building. Within the courtyard is a network of open-air bridging corridors (walkways) as well as large integrated trapezoidal shaped concrete planters. GPA argues that this internal feature of the building, which is not visible from any public right-of-way, has aesthetic interest and value and, therefore, qualifies under Landmark Criterion 2. The GPA report also states that there are no other examples of this courtyard design in multi-family housing from the period found in Santa Monica or the Los Angeles area.
According to the guidance from the NPS, “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.”3 It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.
The statement made by GPA claiming there are no other examples of its type in Santa Monica or the Los Angeles area is unsupported as no evidence that substantiates this claim was provided in the report as a footnote or reference. As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist.
Several publications, including Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving by John Chase; By-Right, By-Design by Liz Falletta; and Dingbat 2.0 edited by Thurman Grant and Joshua G. Stein all note the proliferation and ubiquity of these formulaic apartment buildings many of which share common design features, and were designed by architects of note, including Sam Reisbord, Jack Chernoff, Herman Fidler, John Day, A. J. Arnay, and Max Starkman. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark assessment report that the property appears significant under Criterion 2.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1997.
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 8 Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
OAC concurs with GPA’s finding that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-of-way, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.
According to the registration requirements in the 2018 citywide historic context statement, properties eligible for their architectural style “may be significant as an excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or designed landscape.” The document emphasizes that “due to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features.”4 As mentioned, the subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way. As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style 4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group.
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 9 elsewhere in the City, including along San Vicente Boulevard. Therefore, OAC does not concur with GPA’s finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property satisfies the intent of Landmark Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region and as a notable practitioner of Mid-Century Modern architecture. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career that stretched around the world and allowed him to work with some of the masters in architecture, including Albert Kahn and Paul R.
Williams(as well as designer Alvin Lustig).
His professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career designing striking Modern style multi-family apartment buildings. It is; therefore, OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 5.
As such, OAC does not concur with GPA’s finding that the subject property satisfies Landmark Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
OAC concurs with the GPA finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is ineligible for landmark listing under Landmark Criterion 6.
Conclusion
OAC has completed a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report, dated December 30, 2020, which was prepared by GPA Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property. The peer review was conducted by OAC to ensure that the current identification and evaluation efforts of the subject property for historical significance are adequate and that the findings of the GPA assessment report are sound and well justified. 5 Samuel Reisbord Papers, Architecture and Design Collection – Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara. Known work in Santa Monica designed by Samuel Reisbord includes 2046 14th Street (1954), 2201 Pico Boulevard (1962, demo), 901 10th Street (1970), 824 4th Street (1971), 914 4th Street (1972), 937 3 rd Street (1970), 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961).
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 10 As summary, OAC agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy Landmark criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and architecture merit for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs. The property lacks integrity as well as sufficient historical and architectural significance. Based on review of documentary evidence, site analysis, identification of historic contexts, consideration of integrity, and evaluation against local eligibility criteria, OAC concludes the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is not individually eligible for listing as a City of Santa Monica Landmark.
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 11 ATTACHMENT A:
Supporting Ephemeral Material
“Imperial Apartments” original rendering by Samuel Reisbord, AIA, 1960c (UCSB) Classified Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, 12-09-1962 Front (south) façade view, looking northwest, nd (MLS)
Swimming pool area behind brick wall in front of building (southwest corner of parcel), nd (MLS) Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northwest, 2020c (Bing Map) Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northeast, 2020c (Bing Map) Aerial view –San Vicente Boulevard, 1968 (UCSB)
Aerial view –San Vicente Boulevard (crop), 1968 (UCSB)
PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 16 ATTACHMENT B:
Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal
(updated Landmark assessment report)
305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402
December 30, 2020
(Prepared by GPA Consulting, Los Angeles, CA)
[UNDER SEPARATE COVER]