SR 06-14-2022 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 27
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way
as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve Appeal 21ENT-0253, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision
to designate the property located at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark; and
2. Deny Designation Application 21ENT-0067 to designate the property located at
1665 Appian Way as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
3. If the City Council disapproves the appeal and approves the designation
application to designate the property as either a City Landmark or Structure of
Merit, as described in Alternative Actions, adopt the alternative findings under
“California Environmental Quality Act Compliance”.
Summary
On February 15, 2021, Shyle LP, the owner of the property located at 1665 Appian
Way, filed an application for a demolition permit to demolish the multiple-unit residential
structure located on the property. On March 18, 2021, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2643 (CCS) (
“Interim Zoning Ordinance 2643”) Shawn Hugus submitted an application to designate
the property at 1665 Appian Way as either a Landmark or a Structure of Merit
(Application 21ENT-0067). The designation application included information to support
designating the property as a Landmark based on Santa Monica Municipal Code
(“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A)(1) and (4) (“Landmark Designation Criteria 1 and 4”), as
exemplifying elements of the social and urban/design/architectural history of the City
6.A
Packet Pg. 1245
2 of 27
due to its location and rarity and as a rare example of a “double bungalow” building type
valuable for study.
Staff contracted with Architectural Resource Group (ARG) to prepare an historic
resource assessment report for the property. ARG’s report found that the property
appears eligible for Santa Monica Landmark designation under SMMC 9.56.100(A)(1)
as an example of Santa Monica’s economic history as associated with multi-family
development and its relative rarity. ARG also found that the building may appear eligible
for listing as a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit under 9.56.080(B)(1) as a rare
intact example of purpose-built multi-family housing. ARG did not find the property
eligible under criterion 9.56.080(B)(4) for its craftmanship or typology. The property
owner contracted with GPA Consultants (GPA) to provide an historic resource
assessment. GPA’s assessment found the property did not meet any of the City of
Santa Monica criteria for a Landmark or Structure of Merit. On September 13 and
November 08, 2021, the Landmarks Commission conducted public hearings to discuss
the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark or Structure of Merit The Commission
determined that the property met Landmark designation criteria 9.56.100(A)(1),
determining that the property “exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City” due to its early
construction date and as a rare and early example of “purpose-built” multi-family
residential development, and adopted the findings recommended by the City’s
consultant, ARG. The Commission did not find that the property was eligible for
designation under 9.56.100(A)(4) as recommended in the designation application.
Under Interim Zoning Ordinance 2643, if the Commission designates a property as a
Landmark, it is then automatically determined that the building does not merit
designation as a Structure of Merit. On November 16, 2021, Shyle LP filed a timely
appeal (Appeal 21ENT-0253) of the Landmarks Commission’s decision. The appellant’s
statement is attached and is further discussed in this report. Based on the evidence
outlined in the ARG report, the GPA assessment, evidence received prior to and during
the Commission’s public hearings on September 13, 2021 and November 08, 2021, and
review of the appeal statement, staff does not believe this information materially
6.A
Packet Pg. 1246
3 of 27
changes the original findings presented to the Landmarks Commission. These original
findings, a summary of the Landmarks Commission’s decision, and the appeal
statement are presented for the Council’s consideration as part of this de novo hearing.
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) approve the appeal; and 2) deny the
application to designate the property as either a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
Discussion
Property Information and Architectural Description
1665-1671 Appian Way is located in an interstitial zone between the Downtown and
Ocean Park neighborhoods of Santa Monica. Located just south of the Santa Monica
Pier and about a block west of Santa Monica City Hall, this neighborhood is adjacent to
the ocean and exhibits a moderate downward slope as it approaches the water.
Circulation consists of both vehicular streets and pedestrian thoroughfares, most of
which are oriented northeast-southwest. Two streets - Ocean Avenue and Appian Way -
travel northwest-southeast and transect the neighborhood lengthwise.
Figure 1: Location map/aerial
6.A
Packet Pg. 1247
4 of 27
The neighborhood contains an eclectic mix of property types dating to multiple periods
between the early twentieth century and the present day. Key property types in the
vicinity of the subject property include multi-family dwellings of various sizes and scales,
and hotels that take advantage of the neighborhood’s adjacency to the ocean and
nearby attractions. The neighborhood is anchored by the Santa Monica Pier on the
north, and by the Casa del Mar - a historic hotel dating to 1926 - on the south.
Figure 2 VIEW FROM APPIAN WAY LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS PROPERY
Additional description and photos of the property is included in the ARG assessment.
The subject property is located on the east side of Appian Way, between Arcadia
Terrace (northwest, a pedestrian street) and Pacific Terrace (southeast, an auto street).
The parcel is rectangular, is wider than it is deep, and measures 4,430 square feet. The
site is heavily graded. The lot lines abut Arcadia Terrace (northwest), Pacific Terrace
(southeast), and Appian Way (southwest). The northeast lot line abuts an adjacent
residential parcel that is presently under construction.
The parcel contains a 2,707-square-foot multi-family residential building, consisting of
four units that was built in 1914. The building is one story in height, though it reads as
slightly taller when viewed from the Appian Way façade due to the grade of the site. The
building sits on a concrete foundation and is constructed of wood frame. It consists of
two volumes, each of which is roughly rectangular in plan and contains two dwelling
units. The volumes are attached on the Appian Way façade by a continuous cornice and
parapet. The building is vernacular and lacks characteristics of a particular style.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1248
5 of 27
The building is situated at the center of the primary façade is a narrow pedestrian court.
Access to the court is restricted by a wood gate. Fenestration includes multi-light fixed
wood windows and sliding aluminum windows, some of which have metal security bars.
The southeast façade, which faces Pacific Terrace, also has ample street frontage. This
façade has an entrance to one of the building’s units, which consists of a single,
unarticulated wood door. This entrance is approached by concrete steps with a metal
rail, and a concrete stoop. All windows have wood surrounds; some also have metal
security bars. The northwest façade faces Arcadia Terrace (a pedestrian street). The
northeast façade is obscured from public view. A metal security gate obscures this
façade from the public-right-of-way along Pacific Terrace.
Figure 3 Across from Appian Way looking east and from Appian Way looking northeast
Neighborhood Context: Seaside Terrace
1665-1671 Appian Way is located within the Seaside Terrace development tract.
Located immediately south of the Santa Monica Pier, Seaside Terrace was an early
attempt on the part of developers to develop prime ocean frontage to capitalize on
Santa Monica’s prevailing culture of recreation, leisure, and tourism.
Santa Monica is the third-oldest city in Los Angeles County, having been incorporated in
1886. By virtue of its picturesque location along the coast and its idyllic climate, Santa
Monica, as well as the neighboring communities of Ocean Park and Venice, emerged
as popular destinations among Southern Californians and tourists alike in the latter
6.A
Packet Pg. 1249
6 of 27
decades of the nineteenth century. Bathhouses, hotels, amusement piers, and various
other tourist-oriented developments were erected along the coast in the latter decades
of the nineteenth century, many of which were marketed as “Coney Island” style
attractions - drawing an overt connection with the popular entertainment destination in
New York.
One of the foremost local attractions of this era was the Arcadia Hotel. Built in 1887,
and prominently sited astride a bluff between present-day Colorado Avenue and Pico
Boulevard, the hotel epitomized luxury and elegance. It was housed within a large,
imposing structure designed in the then-fashionable Queen Anne style. In addition to its
well-appointed guest rooms, the hotel featured such amenities as “hot and cold running
water, electric and gas lights, and indoor bathrooms,” as well as a switchback roller
coaster. Beachgoers were known to congregate in droves along the shore adjacent to
the hotel.
In 1909, the Santa Monica Municipal Pier, the largest concrete pier in the world, was
constructed not far from the central business district to carry sewer pipes to the sea.
Looff’s Pleasure Pier was constructed directly beside it in 1916 and featured a roller
coaster, swing ride, bowling alley, carousel, and other attractions. Together, the two
piers comprise the present-day Santa Monica Pier.
However, the fortunes of the Arcadia Hotel waxed and waned and the eventually
closed. In 1909, developer Carl F. Schader purchased the shuttered hotel as well as
several acres of adjoining land, and set out to redevelop his acquisition into a “mixed-
use residential and resort area that would make Santa Monica the ‘Atlantic City of the
West.’” He razed the hotel in 1909 and subdivided its former grounds into two side-by-
side tracts: Seaside Terrace and Vicente Terrace, a decision that coincided with the
construction of the Pier. Schader foresaw the area around the pier as eventually
developing into a recreational hub sought to capitalize on this development. Seaside
Terrace included 61 parcels; Vicente Terrace was slightly smaller, tallying in at 44
parcels. Both tracts were created according to a modified rectilinear grid that conformed
to the contour of the adjacent coast and bluffs.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1250
7 of 27
Prominent examples of early development in Seaside Terrace included the Seaside
Terrace Apartments (not extant) and the Selkirk Apartments (not extant). Both were built
in 1911 along Ocean Front Walk as apartment hotels that catered to tourists and other
itinerant tenants seeking alternatives to the conventional single-family house. So too
was the Purser Hotel and Apartments (extant, designated as a Santa Monica
Landmark), which was constructed in 1913 at Appian Way and Arcadia Terrace.
Smaller, more modest examples of development took place on the blocks east of
Appian Way amid the subdivision’s formative period of growth in the 1910s. Sanborn
maps from 1918 show that on these eastern blocks, early development was varied and
consisted of single-family houses, apartments, and flats. These maps also show that a
majority of lots within the tract remained undeveloped at that time.
Both the designation application and ARG historic assessment contain numerous
historic photos of the neighborhood over time. The photos demonstrate the variety of
building typologies in this area and suggest that no one building typology was prevalent.
Multi-Family Housing
The City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement emphasizes that multi-family
development within the city was rare in the late nineteenth century. At this time, large
hotels like the aforementioned Arcadia often rented rooms to travelers and other
itinerant types during the summer months, but these properties were principally
commercial - not residential - in function. As noted in the City of Santa Monica Historic
Context Statement adopted by the Landmarks Commission as part of the 2018 HRI
update, “no apartment buildings are listed in the 1899 directory and only one, the
Kensington Apartments on S. Ocean Avenue, is listed in the 1907 directory.”
In the 1910s there was construction of more purpose-built, multi-family dwellings as
Southern California witnessed an influx of new residents in addition to seasonal tourists
in search of longer-term accommodations. This need was especially pronounced in
Santa Monica, given its identity as a bastion of tourism and recreation. As noted in the
6.A
Packet Pg. 1251
8 of 27
Historic Context Statement, “six official apartment buildings are listed in Santa Monica
[in 1909] and the number increased significantly during the teens.” 114 apartment
buildings are identified in city directories from 1912.
A wide variety of multi-family building typologies were built beginning in the early 1910s.
Examples of multi-family housing in Santa Monica during this period tended to consist of
small-scale duplexes, triplexes, and flats (also commonly referred to as fourplexes) that
could easily pass as single-family residences and were favored because of their ability
to seamlessly blend into the fabric of existing neighborhoods. Bungalow courts began
appearing circa 1908, and thereafter evolved into other iterations of courtyard housing
that became popular in subsequent decades. Large apartment houses and other, more
quintessentially urban types of multi-family housing also became increasingly common.
1665-1671 Appian Way fits neatly into this context. Constructed in 1914, during the
period that multi-family housing was starting to come of age, the property is reflective of
the location, type, scale, and general configuration of the city’s multi-family housing
stock.
The application also states that “the multi-family residence 1665-1671 Appian Way is
eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under SMMC Section
9.56.100(A)(4) as a rare example of an architectural historical type) valuable for study:
the double bungalow, a type that was previously common in Santa Monica but has
largely disappeared.” However, photos from that period demonstrate this building type
was not prevalent in the beachfront area during the period of significance. The “double-
bungalow” is not a recognized multi-family typology and did not have influence in Santa
Monica or throughout the region.
Historic Resource Designation Application
The applicant for the designation application submitted information to support
designating the property located at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark. The
application asserts that the property meets SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(1) as it
exemplifies elements of the social and urban design/architectural history of the City.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1252
9 of 27
The application also states that as a result of development and redevelopment in this
beachfront area over time, no other extant examples from this period of similar small-
scale duplex housing at Santa Monica’s oceanfront near the pier have been identified.
The application also states that the multi-family residence 1665-1671 Appian Way is
eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under SMMC Section
9.56.100(A)(4) as a rare example of an architectural historical type) valuable for study:
the double bungalow, a type that was previously common in Santa Monica but has
largely disappeared.
City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance Santa Monica Municipal
Code (SMMC) 9.56
Adopted in 1976, the stated purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District
Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is:
[T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such
procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to:
A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s
cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.
B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied
and reflected in such improvements and areas.
C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.
D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents,
tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to
business and industry.
E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for
the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City.
The Ordinance further establishes procedures and standards intended to achieve these
purposes. Among these procedures, the SMMC grants the Landmarks Commission the
power to designate Landmarks and Structures of Merit. The Commission has the option
to designate an improvement as a Landmark or Structure of Merit to allow the City to
6.A
Packet Pg. 1253
10 of 27
protect and enhance improvements that are found to meet certain criteria to support
either designation. Currently, there are 134 designated City Landmarks, 13 designated
Structures of Merit, and 5 Historic Districts within the City.
To guide the exercise of discretion by the Landmarks Commission in designating
Landmarks and the Council in approving or disapproving the actions of the Landmarks
Commission, the Ordinance, SMMC 9.56.100(A), sets forth six Landmark Designation
Criteria:
[T]he Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a
structure, improvement, natural feature, or an object if it finds that it meets one or
more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state
or national history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a
period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail
or historical type valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established
and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
A Structure of Merit is an improvement that has been designated as and determined to
be appropriate for official recognition by the Landmarks Commission. A Structure of
Merit contributes to Santa Monica’s cultural identity but is not sufficiently distinguished
to merit designation as a City Landmark. A key difference between Landmark and
Structure of Merit designations is the level of historic significance based on their
6.A
Packet Pg. 1254
11 of 27
respective designation criterion, as the Landmark criterion are more elevated in
comparison. Also, upon an owner’s request to demolish a designated Structure of
Merit, the City may negotiate with the property owner in an effort to agree to a means of
historically preserving the designated property. However, if no such agreement can be
reached within this 180-day period which can be extended by the Landmarks
Commission for an additional 180 days, the Structure of Merit could be demolished.
Further, a Structure of Merit designation can also be used for a potential contributor to a
potential Historic District. However, the intent of using a potential district as the basis of
a Structure of Merit designation kick starts a 90-day period where a historic district
application must be filed. If such application is not received, then the Structure of Merit
designation is automatically nullified. In this manner, the Structure of Merit designation
does not provide certainty in the protections of a property that a Landmark designation
provides.
The Landmarks Ordinance, SMMC 9.56.080, sets forth the following Structure of Merit
Criteria:
A. The property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
B. The subject building is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
1) It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical
type.
2) It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
In accordance with the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council reviews the
Commission’s designation of a Landmark, as well as any related decisions de novo.
The Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations,
decisions, judgments or similar actions taken that were in the purview of the
Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior
determinations and decisions of the Commission.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1255
12 of 27
Analysis
Staff has analyzed the application materials, the ARG consultant assessment
commissioned by the City, the GPA consultant assessment commissioned by the
property owner, the information provided at the Landmarks Commission meeting
hearings conducted on September 13 and November 08, 2021, including input written
and oral from the public and the Commission discussion. Staff respectfully disagrees
with the conclusions of the Commission and ARG that the property is eligible for
designation. There does not appear to be anything particularly rare or influential about
this “double bungalow” or duplex in the development of the typology or architecture in
the city. Further, the beachfront area developed with a variety of uses and building
typologies and as such the vernacular duplex that this property represents was never
prevalent in this specific location. However, there remain numerous vernacular multi-
family properties in the surrounding neighborhoods and throughout the city, and as such
the subject property is not a rare or representative example.
At the September 13, 2021 Landmarks Commission meeting, a member of the public
provided information regarding the documented racist actions of the property owner.
The item was continued and this was a topic of discussion at the November 08, 2021
Landmarks Commission meeting. While the Statement of Official Action (STOA) does
not include a mention of this, the discussion includes some information on this matter to
ensure a full, yet concise, analysis of all the issues raised by the applicant, appellant,
Commission and members of the public.
Racism of the Property Owner
At the September 13, 2021 Landmarks Commission meeting, a member of the public
included information in written correspondence and oral testimony regarding the racist
practices of John Stotler, the property owner who had the building constructed,
requesting the Commission consider this information as part of their discussion. The
hearing on the item was continued to November 08, 2021 and the Commission directed
staff to provide additional information regarding this matter.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1256
13 of 27
The consultant found, and staff agrees, that the property was not associated with the
racist activities of John Stotler for purposes of designation under the Landmarks
Ordinance. Mr. Stotler was a founding member of the Santa Monica Bay Protective
League, which appears to have been founded upon a focused mission to deny property
to African Americans in Santa Monica and actively advocated against access to Santa
Monica Bay by black people. Mr. Stotler’s racist position and actions as a white
property owner do not make him noteworthy or unique.
While the City of Santa Monica must recognize and find a way to come to terms with the
racist practices that were prevalent, this particular building is not specifically or directly
associated with the racist activities of John Stotler. Although Stotler constructed and
resided in the subject building, the property itself does not appear to have played a
significant role in this facet of local history other than the location of Stotler’s residence,
and therefore there is insufficient evidence linking this history to the property. As such, it
does not meet the criteria for association as it is not clearly nor directly associated with
that shameful history. Additionally, had evidence suggested Mr. Stotler’s racist
practices were specifically connected to this property, staff would recommend that any
designation specifically not recognize Mr. Stotler, so as not to honor the City’s history or
racist practices or Mr. Stotler’s place within that history.
Figure 4 Views of Subject Property from Appian Way
“Double Bungalow” Property Type
ARG researched this property type to see if it is, in fact, a recognized property type that
has been influential or been prevalent in the city. ARG found that the “double-
bungalow” is not a recognized property type and the property is similar to other multi-
6.A
Packet Pg. 1257
14 of 27
family housing types. The property does not appear to have a special or unique
configuration that would warrant special consideration under Landmark Criterion 4.
Staff agrees with this analysis.
Rarity of Subject Property
ARG performed additional research regarding rarity of the property type. The additional
research confirmed ARG’s conclusion that the property appears to be an early, rare
example of purpose-built multi-family housing of the era, and as such finds that the
property appears eligible for designation under criterion SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1) as a
Santa Monica Landmark as an example of Santa Monica’s economic history as
associated with multi-family development and its relative rarity. ARG also found that the
building may appear eligible for listing as a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit
under 9.56.080(B)(1) as a rare intact example of a purpose-built multi-family housing.
Staff respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. As there continue to be several extant
multi-family properties of this era remaining on the HRI, staff believes that the area
studied for its rarity may be too narrowly focused within the vicinity of the subject
property and may therefore establish a false sense of rarity. Other properties in nearby
neighborhoods appear to be more exemplary of multi-family development in this era. In
particular, the properties in the Fourth Street Corner District and the Bay Street Cluster
contain multi-family properties built within a similar time frame. As noted in the
consultant’s report, the property is not the best example of the property type and staff
believes there are other properties and property types that better exemplify the early
economic and development history of this area. Additionally, historic photos
demonstrate that this property type was not particularly prevalent in the immediate
vicinity during the early period of the 20th century.
In the early years of development of the City, there was great flexibility of use,
particularly in residential structures. In particular, there were many properties in close
proximity to the beach that may have originally been built as single-family structures and
were quickly remodeled for use as multi-family. Some of these structures remain as
multi-family structures and others have been remodeled again to single-family or other
6.A
Packet Pg. 1258
15 of 27
use. As such, staff is unsure whether identifying this property as “purpose-built” multi-
family housing is a distinction that may unnecessarily reduce the pool of comparable
properties. It doesn’t appear that this building typology was prevalent at any time in the
immediate area of the subject property. Staff believes the property is neither a good
example or a rare example of its type, and therefore does not warrant designation as a
City Landmark or Structure of merit.
Landmarks Commission Action
On November 08, 2021, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing, continued
from September 13, 2021, on the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark or
Structure of Merit. The Commission was provided with the designation application
materials, the ARG landmark assessment report commissioned by the City, including
the supplemental report provided in response to their direct request related to John
Stotler, staff’s analysis in the staff report, and the historic assessment property by, GPA
on behalf of the property owner, to prepare an independent historic assessment and
submitted that assessment as a part of the record for consideration by the Landmarks
Commission. The GPA assessment concluded that the property does not satisfy the
criterion findings as a City Landmark, or Structure of Merit. The GPA report and the
appellant’s demolition permit application and appeal application materials are attached.
In consideration of all written and oral testimony, staff and historic preservation
consultant reports, and materials introduced into the public record, the Commission
voted 4-3 to designate building at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark and the
property parcel on which the building is located as an associated Landmark Parcel. The
Commission designated the Landmark and Landmark Parcel based on criterion #1
pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
The Commission’s findings included:
• Criterion #1: The subject property exemplifies elements of Santa Monica’s
economic history, specifically those associated with patterns of early residential
development. It was among the smattering of early multi-family dwellings that
were built in newly-subdivided tracts adjacent to the Municipal Pier (which
6.A
Packet Pg. 1259
16 of 27
opened in 1909) and other recreation and leisure oriented amenities that were
located adjacent to the shore. Modest, purpose-built multifamily housing options
like the subject property were introduced to Santa Monica in the very early
twentieth century, loosely defined as the period prior to 1920. These early
examples of purpose-built multi-family housing were a testament to the profound
influence that leisure, recreation, and tourism had on Santa Monica’s built
environment at this time. Their relatively compact footprints and efficient use of
space reflect the ways in which developers adapted and responded to a demand
for shorter-term, affordable alternatives to the single-family house in order to
better accommodate the itinerant lifestyles of tourists and others drawn to Santa
Monica’s culture and climate. The subject property - and particularly its
oceanfront setting and efficient use of space - is illustrative of how Santa
Monica’s housing stock evolved in response to broad economic trends of the
period. Built in 1914, the subject property has a relatively early construction date
when compared against Santa Monica’s pool of extant multi-family residential
buildings. It thus stands out as an early example of purpose-built multi-family
residential development, which began to come of age in the 1910s but did not
proliferate until the 1920s. Examples of multifamily development from the 1920s
onward are manifold in Santa Monica; examples of multi-family housing pre-
dating 1920, by contrast, are far fewer. In addition, the subject property is notable
on account of its rarity: specifically, it is one of but only a few examples of early
(pre-1920) purpose-built multi-family residential development in Santa Monica
that remains extant and retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with
key patterns of residential development and economic history. It is certainly not
the only remaining example of a pre-1920 multi-family dwelling - the locally
designated Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, 1913) sits across the
street and conveys many of the same characteristics - but the subject property is
among an already meager population of pre-1920, purpose-built multi-family
resources that has diminished even more over time, as similar properties have
either been demolished to make way for new development or have been altered
to the extent to which they no longer retain sufficient integrity for listing. Though it
has experienced some alterations, the subject property retains integrity from its
6.A
Packet Pg. 1260
17 of 27
original construction date. Rarity is corroborated by data culled from the 2018
HRI. Including the subject property, only eleven examples of pre-1920 multi-
family properties were identified in the HRI as eligible for listing. This figure is
very meager when compared against the total number of eligible resources
identified in the HRI (875) and the total number of parcels within the City of Santa
Monica (approximately 23,000). Moreover, Sanborn maps from 1918 indicate
that at that time, there were a sizable number of modest, purpose-built multi-
family dwellings in the Seaside Terrace and Vicente Terrace tracts, particularly
on the inland blocks east of Appian Way. Almost all of these early, purpose-built
multi-family dwellings from the 1910s have since been extensively altered or
demolished. Many succumbed to redevelopment that took place in these
neighborhoods in the 1990s, which resulted in the demolition of many existing
properties and the construction of expansive, multi-lot developments in their
place.
Because the Landmarks Commission designated the structure as a City Landmark, in
accordance with Interim Zoning Ordinance 2643, it was automatically determined that
the property did not merit designation as a Structure of Merit. Therefore, no findings
were necessary for the Structure of Merit criteria.
During its deliberations, the Commissioners had substantial disagreement on whether
or not the property met the Landmark designation criteria, and whether or not there was
sufficient integrity to warrant designation, resulting in a 4 to 3 vote in favor of
designation. The Commission focused their discussion on the particular qualities and
craftsmanship of the structure, its rarity, and the racism of the original property owner.
Although no formal vote was taken because none was necessary under IZO 2643, the
Commission discussed and generally agreed that it did not appear that the property
satisfied any of the criteria for a Structure of Merit.
The November 08, 2021 Landmarks Commission staff report, approved meeting
minutes, and the approved Statement of Official Action are attached. The audio
recording of the September 13, 2021 and November 08, 2021 meetings are posted on
6.A
Packet Pg. 1261
18 of 27
the City’s webpage: <https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Boards-
Commissions/Landmarks-Commission/>.
Appeal
On November 16, 2021, the appellant/property owner filed a timely appeal of the
Landmarks Commission’s decision. The appellant primarily amplifies the staff report, the
pertinent information was previously discussed in this report.
Appeal Analysis
1. Appellant states that the staff report and the property owner’s historic
preservation consultant report (GPA Consulting) finds that the property does not
meet the City’s criteria for designation as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit.
The Appellant also cited that GPA also found that the recommendations do not
follow the guidance published by the National Park Service.
City Staff and GPA consulting agreed that neither the findings for Landmark nor
Structure of Merit designations could not be met. The staff report and GPA’s report
noted that the building is an unremarkable vernacular structure, many of which are still
extant in the city, and that the property type did not influence development patterns or
represent a notable building type. As there are other similar buildings in the city and
throughout the region and that there is nothing that distinguishes this property to be
historic but rather it is simply old.
The GPA report also identifies the importance of attention to the National Register
guidance. Historic preservation professionals and Commissions alike refer to National
Register guidance to assist in analysis of significance pertaining to designation.
Regarding Santa Monica Criterion 1, “It exemplifies, symbolizes or manifests elements
of the cultural, social economic and political or architectural history of the City”. The
National Register guidance has a similar criterion, and states that the property must be
not only associated with a historic trend, but that the property must have an important
association with that trend. The property may have been built as part of the building of
multi-family housing to serve full-time residents and visitors alike. However, it does not
6.A
Packet Pg. 1262
19 of 27
appear to be an important property type or of significant influence within that trend.
Other property types such as the courtyard property type was in fact very influential in
the city during the 1920’s and 1930’s and thereafter. The “double-bungalow” is not a
recognized type and the building is vernacular and commonplace in a way that does not
appear to be significant within that trend. Staff is in agreement with the appellant that
the property does not meet Santa Monica Criterion 1.
2. The appeal states that while the City’s consultant (ARG) found the property to be
worthy of designation as an example of “purpose-built multi-family housing, but
that the analysis does not support that conclusion. The appeal re-iterates the
staff report which states that the geographic area and typology was significantly
narrowed to create the appearance of rarity.
As the staff report to the Landmarks Commission states, there were about 112 multi-
family residential properties built in the era from 1910 to 1920 and more than 10 percent
of those properties remain extant. Therefore, the property is not a rare example of its
type. There are a number of other vernacular multi-unit residential properties
remaining, several recognized such as in the 4th Street Corner Historic District, Bay
Street Cluster, and 11th Street Historic District.
Additionally, photos included in the ARG and GPA consultant reports reveal that there
were not a substantial number of similar properties originally built within this
neighborhood or tract. The property was always a simple, unremarkable, vernacular
structure in an eclectic neighborhood filled with various types, sizes and styles of
structures. Staff respectfully disagrees with the ARG report which suggests the
property is a rare example of a diminishing type. However, this particular property was
not one of similar properties built in this small area of the city that no longer exist, but
one of an eclectic mix of property types. And so identifying it as a rare property type
appears to be a mischaracterization.
Recommendation
6.A
Packet Pg. 1263
20 of 27
Eligibility as Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation and Proposed Findings
The Interim Zoning Ordinance 2643, which governed the demolition permit review
process for this property, requires the City Council, on appeal, to review the building’s
eligibility as a Landmark or Structure of Merit. In order to be designated as a City
Landmark, the Council is required to find that the property meets one or more of the six
criteria discussed below.
Staff has analyzed the application materials, the ARG historic resource assessment
procured by the City, and the GPA historic resource assessment commissioned by the
property owner and has considered all the testimony and Landmarks Commission
discussion and designation. Based on a thorough analysis of all this information, the
City’s past practice, National Register Guidance and the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards, staff respectfully disagrees with the Landmarks Commission conclusion and
recommends the City Council approve the appeal and deny the designation. The
property, while one of the only extant beachfront bungalow the so-called “double-
bungalow” does not appear to be a significant aspect on the larger trend of residential
development near the beach or in Santa Monica as a whole. Additionally, based on
analysis of the history of the building fabric in the neighborhood over time, and the
prevalence of multi-family vernacular architecture of this period remaining throughout
the city, staff does not find the subject property to be a rare example of its type.
The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:
Evaluation for Landmark Designation
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission, and the City Council on
appeal, to review the building’s eligibility as a Landmark based on the six criteria
discussed below. As this is an appeal, in order to be designated as a Landmark, the
Council is required to find that the property meets one or more of the criteria:
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1264
21 of 27
The subject property is a simple, unremarkable example of a duplex typology, built in
a period where a variety of multi-family building typologies were being built in the
area closest to the beach as well as the adjacent Ocean Park neighborhood. As
there were about 112 multi-family residential properties built in this era and more
than 10 percent of those properties remain extant, the property does not warrant
recognition. Additionally, other multi-family properties from this era in the immediate
and surrounding neighborhoods (Bay Street Cluster, 4th Street Historic Corner
District) have been recognized as exemplary of this typology. Therefore, the subject
property does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 1.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other
noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property is a vernacular building that lacks the distinctive characteristics
of a particular architectural style. Its features are more a testament to function than
they are to aesthetics. Because of its vernacular appearance, the building reads as a
simple structure that was erected to provide affordable, functional housing options to
Santa Monica’s working and middle-class residents - and was not intended to be a
building of particular architectural or aesthetic merit in the spirit of this criterion.
For these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not appear to be eligible for listing
as a Landmark under Criterion 2.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important
events in local, state or national history.
There is insufficient evidence indicating that any of the people associated with the
subject property made significant contributions to history. Original owner John S.
Stotler - who also lived in one of the building’s dwelling units between 1914 and 1931
- appears to have had a successful career, first in the mining industry and later as a
local real estate developer, but does not appear to have made any significant
inroads to history that would render him a historically significant individual in the spirit
of this criterion. None of the subsequent owners or tenants associated with the
building appear to be of historical significance. The scant information that is available
6.A
Packet Pg. 1265
22 of 27
about these individuals indicates that they lived typical lives and were employed in
typical vocations.
There is also insufficient evidence to indicate that the property is associated with a
significant event in local, state, or national history. It appears to have functioned as
nothing more than a typical multi-family dwelling between its original (1914)
construction and the present day. For these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian Way does
not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 3.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of
indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an
architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
As discussed in the evaluation against Landmark Criterion 2, the subject property is
a vernacular structure that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural style.
There is also nothing particularly noteworthy about its method of construction or
craftsmanship, as it is a conventional wood frame building utilizing methods and
materials typical of the era in which it was constructed. The subject property does
not read as a particularly strong example of any particular multi-family property type
identified in the City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement. It has four units,
but does not present as a fourplex; it also contains a pedestrian passage between its
volumes, but lacks the shared open space that is characteristic of bungalow courts
and courtyard housing. It lacks the height and the density characteristic of apartment
houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence showing that it is a unique
or rare example of an architectural or historical type valuable to a study, per this
criterion.
The building does not appear to be significant on the merits of its architecture. Its
significance is derived from its use and associative qualities, not for reasons relating
to its physical design. Therefore, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not appear to be
eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 4.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1266
23 of 27
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
Original building permits for the subject property are not available; supplemental
research about the property indicates that it was not designed by an architect, and
was built by building contractor F.N. Jones. No pertinent information could be found
about the life, career, or contributions of Jones; available documentation indicates
that he was a locally-based building contractor who erected the occasional building
but was not especially prolific in their craft. Given the lack of information about F.N.
Jones - and the lack of an architect of record - there is insufficient evidence
demonstrating that the building is a representative example of the wok or product of
a notable builder, designer, or architect. For these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian Way
does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 5.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or
is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the
City.
The subject property does not possess any singular feature or physical characteristic
that stands out as memorable or noteworthy. While it reads as considerably older that
most other buildings in the immediate vicinity, there is nothing particularly notable about
its design or appearance apart from its relative age. It is located on a typical residential
lot on a lesser-traveled street, and does not occupy a particularly prominent location. It
may be familiar to those who reside in the neighborhood and pass by on a regular
basis, but to the casual passer-by the building does not stand out as an aesthetically
distinctive resource in the spirit of this criterion. It is compatible with, and blends into its
surroundings. For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not
appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 6.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1267
24 of 27
Evaluation for Structure of Merit Designation
While the consultant, ARG, has found that the subject property meets one or more of
the Structure of Merit Criteria, staff respectfully disagrees with that assessment and
recommends the Commission deny the property as a designated Structure of Merit:
9.56.080(A): The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory.
The subject property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).
As noted, in the most recent (2018) iteration of the HRI, it was flagged as potentially
eligible for individual listing and was assigned the California Historical Resources Status
Code of 5S3: “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through
survey evaluation.” However, based on further evaluation as noted above, the property
does not appear eligible for listing under any Structure of Merit criteria.
9.56.080(B): The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
The subject property is a minimum of 50 years of age as it was constructed in 1914.
Therefore, the structure is eligible for further consideration under the following criteria:
(B)(1). The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail
or historical type.
The subject property is a simple design of a property type for which more than 10% of
similar property types built in the 1910s are extant. The subject property does not stand
out as an architectural design, detail or historic type and is not rare, and therefore does
not appear to be eligible for designation under this criterion.
(B)(2). The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no
longer prevalent.
The building is more than 50 years of age. However, as noted in the evaluation against
Landmark Criteria 2 and 4, it is a vernacular building that lacks distinctive characteristics
of an architectural style. Additionally, while the property was not influential on other
properties, vernacular buildings are ubiquitous throughout Santa Monica and remains
6.A
Packet Pg. 1268
25 of 27
prevalent. For these reasons, Appian Way does not appear to satisfy Structure of Merit
Criterion B.2.
(B)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The subject property has not been identified as a contributor to a historic district.
Therefore, it does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Structure of Merit under this
criterion.
Parcel Designation
The Ordinance grants the Landmarks Commission, and the City Council on appeal, the
power to designate a Landmark Parcel to “preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard” a
Landmark. SMMC 9.56.060(A); 9.56.030(K). Generally, any proposed alteration,
restoration, construction, removal, or relocation that occurs on a Landmark Parcel
requires approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. SMMC 9.56.140. The Landmarks
Commission, or the City Council on appeal, also has the power to specify the nature of
any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to a
Landmark or Landmark Parcel which may be performed without a Certificate of
Appropriateness. SMMC 9.56.120(F).
At its November 08, 2021 meeting, the Landmarks Commission designated the property
commonly known as 1665 Appian Way as an associated Landmark Parcel. Because
staff is not recommending designation of the structures, staff does not recommend
designation of the parcel.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the
following if supported by the full evidentiary record:
1. Articulate revised findings resulting in the denial of the subject appeal, approving
the subject property as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
2. Uphold the Landmarks Commission’s decision by adopting the Landmarks
Commission’s findings pursuant to Statement of Official Action 21ENT-0065 and
designate the property as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as
1665 Appian Way as an associated Landmark Parcel.
6.A
Packet Pg. 1269
26 of 27
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a
public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, CEQA would not be
applicable.
Alternative Findings
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that disapproving the appeal and designating the property as
either a Landmark or Structure of Merit will result in any significant effect on the
environment. This determination is based on the record as a whole, which includes, but
is not limited to, evidence that the designation of the property as a Landmark or
Structure of Merit will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources, the
designation would not result in any physical change to the property, and any future
physical changes would be subject to subsequent CEQA review.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 1665 Appian Way Appeal City Council In Person Meetings
B. 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1)
C. 21ENT-0253 (1665 Appian Way) APP Application (1)
D. ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221
E. ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221
F. 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1)
G. LC minutes 11-08-2021
6.A
Packet Pg. 1270
27 of 27
H. STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA
I. Written Comments
6.A
Packet Pg. 1271
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 21ENT-0253 Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation 21ENT0067.
ADDRESS: 1665 Appian Way
PROPERTY OWNER: Shyle LP
APPLICANT: Shawn Hugus
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation 21ENT-0067 for the designation of the building at 1665
Appian Way as a City Landmark and for the property as a Landmark Parcel.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting
but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public
hearing via email to councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room
102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of
the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public
record. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed
instructions on how to comment in person.
Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: 21ENT-0253
VIA EMAIL: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Stephanie Reich at
(310) 458-2200 ext 5460 or by e-mail at stephanie.reich@santamonica.gov. For disability-related
accommodations, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or (310) 917-6626 TDD at least
72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall
and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and
is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic
Center Parking Structure (validation free).
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División
de Planificación al número (310) 458-2275.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: 1665 Appian Way Appeal City Council In Person Meetings [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.santa-monica.org
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
This part to be completed by City staff
L.C. Case No.:Amount Paid: $
Received By:Check No.:
Date Submitted:
Applications must be submitted at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall. City Hall is located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA
90401. If you have any questions completing this application you may call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:
Land Use Element District: Zoning District:
Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:
APPLICANT
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
CONTACT PERSON (if different) (Note: All correspondence will be sent to the applicant)
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
Relation to Applicant:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
Subject improvement is generally known as:
Existing use(s) of site:
Rent control status:
Status: Occupied Unoccupied
Recognized in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory: Yes No
Condition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins Unexposed
Threats: None Private Development Vandalism
Public Works Project Zoning Other:
NOTES TO
APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections
of this application
and submit all
required materials. Incomplete
applications will not
be accepted for
filing.
Landmarks
Commission meets
on the second
Monday of each
month.
The applicant,
representative, or
legal owner familiar
with the project must be present at
the Landmarks
Commission
meeting.
A decision on
designation is
rendered at the
hearing. All
decisions by the
Landmarks
Commission are
subject to a 10-day
appeal period. An
official appeal form
and fee schedule is
available at the City
Planning Division
Public Counter.
Appealed projects
will be scheduled
for a hearing before
the City Council.
21ENT-0067Scott Albright03/18/2021
851.90
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Page 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ~ Please Note ~
The following property and historical information identified below
must be provided in order for your application to be determined
complete by the City Planning Division.
You may provide information on additional sheets of paper.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:
Statement of architectural significance:
Statement of historic importance:
NOTES TO
APPLICANT
For more
information on
designation
procedures, refer to
SMMC Section
9.56.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Page 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Person(s) of historic importance:
Local State National
Statement of other significance:
Documents and publications that relate directly to proposed improvement
(bibliography):
FOR STRUCTURES ONLY:
Date of construction: Factual Estimated
Source:
Architect/Designer/Engineer:
Contractor/ Other builder:
Architectural Style:
Historic Use of Structure(s):
Present Use of Structure(s):
Is/Are structure(s) on original site: Yes No Unknown
Is/Are structure(s) threatened with destruction: Yes No Unknown
If yes, state reason:
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Page 4 APPLICATOIN REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS – all items must be provided
Completed Application.
Payment of Fee, if applicable.
Payment of Fee is WAIVED for Non-Profit Organizations. Documentation demonstrating
Tax-Exempt Status must be included with this application and at the time of filing to be
eligible for a Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application fee waiver.
Staff will confirm non-profit organization status prior to deeming this application complete.
Verification of Property Owner Outreach.
Property owner outreach and communication must be conducted prior to submittal of
this Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application, if the filing party is not the
property owner.
The purpose of this outreach is to ensure the following:
The property owner has been contacted and is aware of this Landmark/Structure of
Merit Designation Application submittal;
The property owner is aware of why the property may be considered
historically/culturally/architecturally noteworthy;
The property owner has been provided contact/website/printed information for the
City of Santa Monica’s Planning Division, Historic Preservation Program, and
Landmarks Commission.
Eight (8) sets of labeled Color Photographs of the building elevations or improvement
on 8½" x 11" paper (Color photocopies are acceptable).
Any information you feel would be of assistance in reviewing the application, such as
original plans, old photos, or other historical information.
For structures only: if applicant is requesting approval of modifications, please submit all
materials requested for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application.
I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge.
____________________________________________________
Applicant’s Name (PRINT)
_________________________________________________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
1
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:
The multi-family residence at 1665-1671 Appian Way is located at the northeastern terminus of the
vehicular section of Arcadia Terrace, and adjacent to the lower (southwestern) entry portal of the Arcadia
Terrace walk-street; the residential property extends southeast to Pacific Terrace (Figure 1). The graded,
terraced terrain rises steeply on the property’s northeast side, with the resource’s northeast facades being
below the level of the site of neighboring 24 Arcadia Terrace (Figure 2). Appian Way is a two-lane paved
street with sidewalks on both sides that extend to the curb, with widely spaced mature Mexican fan palm
trees on the southwest side. The buildings have a view toward the southwest across Appian Way and a
surface parking lot to the beach and the ocean, framed on the corner diagonal to the west by the 1913 Purser
Apartments (which was designated as a Santa Monica Landmark in 2017) (Figure 3).
The resource’s lot was part of Carl F. Schader’s 1911 Seaside Terrace Development, and the property was
purchased in 1911 by John S. Stotler. An April 12, 1914 article mentioned that J. S. Stotler was having
plans drawn for “two modern double bungalows, which will be built at once in Seaside Terrace at Appian
Way and Arcadia Terrace” (Los Angeles Times October 1, 1911; Los Angeles Times April 12, 1914; Los
Angeles County Assessor 1911-1919 map book). The 1918 Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows the two
buildings built to the lot lines on the northeast, southeast, and southwest facades, with a narrow passage
between them (Figure 4). The address shown in the 1918 Sanborn map for the northernmost unit adjoining
the entry to Arcadia Terrace was 18 Arcadia Terrace, while the other units were designated 1601, 1603,
and 1605 Appian Way. The three Appian Way units are shown with similar footprints in the 1918 Sanborn
map, but the unit at 18 Arcadia Terrace had a recessed porch at its northwest façade toward the Arcadia
Terrace entrance and concrete benches (the benches are no longer extant) (Figure 5). The 1601 and 1603
units had entrances in the shared passage way, and the 1605 unit’s entrance was on Pacific Terrace. Their
original form is visible in a 1922 aerial image (Figure 6).
The one-story vernacular buildings are clad with weathered wood siding with an unusual pattern of wider
and narrower boards (Figures 7-8). Wood framing and brackets at the southwest façade appears in the 1922
aerial image to have originally supported windowboxes, which are no longer extant. The building’s
windows are not clearly visible in the historic image. While their rhythm of larger windows alternating with
smaller windows is extant, some of the existing windows at the southwest façade have been replaced with
glass louver units, and some with vinyl units. The flat wood window frames with slightly protruding headers
appear to be original, with some of the framing exhibiting deterioration (Figure 9).
The entrance to the 1671 Appian Way unit is via a poured concrete stair with an updated metal handrail at
the southerly building’s southeast façade on Pacific Terrace. Between the two buildings and located behind
a deteriorated wood gate, poured concrete steps lead to a shared walkway and the entrances to the 1667 and
1669 units (Figures 10-11). The entry doors are updated units. The buildings’ flat built-up roofing has a
low parapet, and vents with wood louvers through the parapet at the southeast façade (Figure 12; also see
Figure 2). Lower vents at the Appian Way and Pacific Terrace facades indicate a crawl space beneath the
southwesterly part of the units.
Digitized building permits at the City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department include only
electrical and plumbing applications permits and inspection notices between 1961 and 1982, but not
documentation for the circa 1960-1970s infill of the porch at 18 Arcadia Terrace (present-day 1665 Appian
Way), an addition at the northern corner of the property with a rooftop deck, and the enclosure of a narrow
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
2
below-grade passage adjacent to the Arcadia Terrace stairway (which also enclosed part of the Arcadia
Terrace’s entry portal) (Figures 13-15). These alterations to the 1665 Appian Way unit may have occurred
as part of repairs due to fire damage, for which a building permit was obtained in 1973 (Figure 16).
Information about the building’s current function—whether as short-term beach rentals or long-term
residences—is not known, however at least two of the units appeared to be occupied at the time of survey.
Statement of architectural significance:
The multi-family residence 1665-1671 Appian Way is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark
under Criterion 4 as a rare example of an architectural historical type valuable for study: the double
bungalow. Prior to this evaluation, the property was recommended eligible for designation by the City of
Santa Monica and/or for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register
of Historic Places in the field survey conducted for the 2017 Draft Historic Resources Inventory update
(Goodrich 2018). It was noted in the April 12, 1914 newspaper article referenced above that the form of the
multi-family residences are two double bungalows. This form of housing was included in popular builders’
pattern books in the 1920s, but is now relatively rare; the Santa Monica History Museum had no information
about historic double bungalows in Santa Monica (Crown 2018). One deteriorated example of a duplex
bungalow was documented in a 1994 master’s thesis about historic preservation and land use in Ocean Park
(Figure 17) (Wenzel 1994). The two duplexes that comprise 1665-1671 Appian Way are examples of a type
of multi-family housing that was previously common in Santa Monica, but that has largely disappeared.
The double bungalow floor plan in the 1920 Deluxe Flats Homes catalog shows two linear residential units
that are mirror images of each other (Figure 18). While the interiors of 1665-1671 Appian Way were not
accessible for survey, the linear nature of these buildings suggest they may have a similar layout, and
Stotler’s 1914 “To Let” ad stated the unit being rented had the same composition of “3 rooms, kitchen,
bath, screen porch, and two double beds, all conveniences” as those shown in Deluxe Flats Homes’ Plan
500 (Los Angeles Times June 7, 1914).
Statement of historic importance:
In addition to the rarity of their double bungalow form, the multi-family residences at 1665-1671 Appian
Way also represent one of the few surviving examples of small-scale rental housing on the beach from the
1910s. They exemplify elements of the social and urban design/architectural history of the City, and meet
the requirements for Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 1. As a result of development and redevelopment
in this beachfront area over time, no other extant examples from this period of similar small-scale duplex
housing at Santa Monica’s oceanfront near the pier have been identified. The field survey for the 2017
Santa Monica Historic Resource Inventory Update also recommended the multi-family residences at 1665-
1671 Appian Way as eligible for designation by the City of Santa Monica and/or listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places (Goodrich 2018).
1665-1671 Appian Way is part of Carl F. Schader’s 1911 Seaside Terrace development on the site of the
Arcadia Hotel on Santa Monica’s palisades. Contemporary with the construction of the 1909 Municipal
Pier, Schader’s projects transformed the bluffs into terraces and created a middle- to upper-middle-class
residential built environment extending south to present-day Pico Boulevard, between Ocean Avenue and
Appian Way, that included the Arcadia Terrace walk-street. Located immediately adjacent to Arcadia
Terrace’s western entry portal at Appian Way, the subject site is physically separate from adjacent Arcadia
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
3
Terrace, and differs stylistically and in scale from the other properties in the original build-out of Schader’s
developments. In the Ocean Park area south of Pico Boulevard, modest affordable housing predominated
between the turn of the twentieth century and the 1930s, with bungalows noted as the most common housing
type (Wenzel 1994:39, 43). However, the mid-twentieth century demand for redevelopment in Santa
Monica, and the construction of denser housing, hotels, and tourist amenities in an Oceanfront district
defined in the 1984 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the city’s General Plan, resulted in the
removal of the majority of similar small-scale housing in Ocean Park and in the city’s oceanfront area south
of the pier.
Arcadia Hotel (1877 – 1909)
The Arcadia Hotel opened in Santa Monica in 1887, at the conclusion of a tremendous real estate boom in
Southern California, but also in excursion trains traveling to California during the winter months, bringing
wealthy visitors from New England and Chicago, and creating a demand for high-end hotels. J.W. Scott,
the proprietor of Santa Monica’s first hotel, the 1876 Santa Monica Hotel at present-day Ocean Avenue and
Colorado Avenue, partnered with the Pacific Investment Company (associated with the Southern Pacific
Railroad), to build an impressive hotel on Scott’s Addition at the edge of the palisades south of an arroyo
(the present-day location of the Santa Monica Freeway’s transition to Pacific Coast Highway) (Figure 19)
(Marquez 2004:16-17, 23).
Although very popular, the Arcadia Hotel was short-lived due to financial problems, rapidly changing
development, competing tourist amenities, and outdated plumbing and heating systems (Marquez 2004:23).
Real estate and mining investor Carl F. Schader formed the Schader-Hellman syndicate and purchased the
property in 1909, and then demolished the hotel, its bathhouse, and adjacent cottages (Los Angeles Times
June 20, 1909; Los Angeles Times July 3, 1910; Oxnard Courier July 22, 1910). To realize a grand plan
that included “the great development of that fine, slightly, but hitherto neglected section of Santa Monica
extending south from the Arcadia to Ocean Park,” Schader purchased additional property adjacent to the
former hotel site and formed the Schader Seaside Terrace Company, with plans to develop the land in
connection with the construction of a new municipal pier (built in 1908-1909) (Figure 20).
Carl F. Schader and the Seaside Terrace Development
Envisioning the conversion of the palisades into “ornamental courts and terraces leading by easy grades to
the beach” with a variety of updated amusement and entertainment features, Schader’s plans foresaw on
the terraced sites “numerous bungalows and cottages of unique design, for the accommodation of summer
and winter visitors, or for permanent homes. These little seaside homes are to be equipped with all modern
conveniences and luxuries.” In addition to single-family homes, apartment houses, spacious grounds, and
beautiful lawns were promoted (Los Angeles Times April 25, 1911).
Schader’s development also included the construction of Appian Way through the middle of the Seaside
and Vicente Terrace tracts. The road was intended to continue north to “skirt the foot of the cliffs all the
way to the entrance of Santa Monica Canon,” and a wide concrete esplanade was built in 1910 southward
from the new pier at Colorado Avenue to connect with the Hollister Avenue terminus of a concrete walk to
Venice. Also projected was the construction of a thoroughfare extending from Fremont Avenue to Pico
Boulevard in Los Angeles, to provide easy access to Santa Monica from the center of the city. In 1910, the
“air line flyer” branch of the Los Angeles-Pacific railroad began service on the former Southern Pacific
right of way (which was incorporated into the Pacific Electric system in 1911), and Seaside Terrace was
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
4
promoted as being a 35-minute ride from downtown Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times July 3, 1910; Los
Angeles Herald July 31, 1910; Los Angeles Times September 26, 1915). In 1915, the Los Angeles-Santa
Monica Beach Company, headed by R. P. Benjamin and B. M. Moss, announced plans for the former site
of the Southern Pacific’s terminal at Ocean Avenue on the north side of Schader’s Seaside Terrace,
including the grading of the slope on the south side of the municipal pier, the re-routing of the Pacific
Electric’s “air line” under Ocean Avenue to the beach promenade, and construction of a second pier
adjacent to the municipal pier as part of a “gigantic pleasure resort” of the “better class” that would be a
“‘second Atlantic City rather than a new Coney Island,’” in reference to Abbott Kinney’s development of
Midway-type attractions at the popular Venice development 3 miles to the south (Los Angeles Times
September 26, 1915).
After the bluff was scraped to create “a gentle terraced incline from the trolley tracks on Ocean avenue to
the broad concrete promenade along the ocean front,” Schader had two private residential courts laid out:
Arcadia Terrace and Kensington Terrace (now Seaview Terrace). Both included one-, one-and-one-half-
and two-story single-family and multi-family residences, with a central cement walk and “broad, easy
cement staircases leading up from the Appian Way to the top of the bluff” (Los Angeles Times April 3,
1910; Los Angeles Times March 15, 1914). The entry portal and stair to Arcadia Terrace are located near
the southern edge of the former Arcadia Hotel’s footprint. A July 1911 newspaper display ad noted that
Arcadia Terrace Private Court’s entrances at Ocean Avenue and at Appian Way included “two imposing
entrances, each flanked by massive concrete pillars,” which were noted to have attracted “no end of
attention in the beach city, owning to their unique and beautiful design…. The style followed in this
entrance treatment is that of the ancient and almost extinct architecture of Yucatan, the pillars being copied
from those found in ruins in that mysterious and inconceivably antique country. The whole is worked out
in reinforced concrete” (Los Angeles Times July 30, 1911).
J. S. Stotler’s “modern double bungalows” on Appian Way
Lot number 43 on the southern side of the walk-street’s western portal was purchased by John S. Stotler in
September 1911 (Los Angeles Times October 1, 1911). Six months later, a 1912 newspaper display ad for
Schader Realty Brokers showed the three-story Seaside Terrace Hotel and Selkirk Apartments built on
opposite corners at the intersection of Seaside Terrace and present-day Ocean Front, providing a supply of
visitor accommodations (Figure 21).
In April 1914, J. S. Stotler had plans prepared for “two modern double bungalows, which will be built at
once in Seaside Terrace at Appian way and Arcadia Terrace” (Los Angeles Times April 12, 1914). A June
7, 1914 “To Let” ad was placed by Stotler in the Los Angeles Times, but it does not state whether the
building’s units were being rented for a specific term, month-to-month, or as shorter-term vacation rentals;
and Stotler himself was listed as a resident at 18 Arcadia Terrace through 1917 (Los Angeles Times June 7,
1914; 1915-1916, 1917 Santa Monica city directories). Images of Santa Monica’s beach and promenade
south from the municipal pier at the turn of the twentieth century show a density of modest vernacular
housing together with larger homes, some of which were used for daily, weekly, and monthly rentals
(Figures 22-23). However, only a few small-scale buildings are visible in a 1924 aerial of the Seaside
Terrace development south of the pier of the pier, with some being used as business, cafes, or suppliers of
take-out foods (1925 Santa Monica city directory) (Figures 24-25). There were few if any other bungalow-
type rentals on this section of beachfront.
Influence of the Looff Pleasure Pier on the Appian Way neighborhood, 1910s–1940s
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
5
A series of piers were built, expanded, and re-built between Santa Monica and Venice during the first three
decades of the twentieth century, rivaling each other for amusements and attractions. With convenient
transportation via the Pacific Electric railway (in addition to regular scheduled service, the extremely
popular full-day “Balloon Route” excursion train featured stops at Santa Monica and Venice’s beaches),
the piers became a driver for the local economy and the area’s physical development (City of Santa Monica
Draft Historic Context Statement 2017:26-27); a 1911 newspaper display ad, probably placed by Schader,
illustrated Seaside Terrace and Vicente Terrace’s location on the five passenger-packed streetcar lines to
Santa Monica (Figure 26). The Looff Pleasure Pier opened in 1916 and included the hippodrome with its
hand-carved carousel and the pier’s first roller coaster, with the La Monica Ballroom opening on the pier
in 1924, and attracting visitors and prospective residents to the pier area (see Figure 24, above). The wide
concrete esplanade between the Santa Monica pier and those in Venice – sequentially named Ocean Front
Promenade (through 1920), Promenade (through 1940), and Ocean Front Walk – became lined with bath
houses, small-scale commercial buildings, single-family and multi-family residences ranging from one to
three stories in height, beach clubs, and parking lots (1915-1940 city directories; Gershenhorn 2016:11).
During the 1920s, the population of Los Angeles more than doubled to 1.2 million, while Santa Monica’s
growth exceeded 140 percent with 37,146 residents by 1930 (U.S. Census Bureau). The steady volume of
visitors supported numerous restaurants, lunch counters, and concessions along the Ocean Front Promenade
adjacent to Schader’s Seaside Terrace tract (Figure 27). Beginning in the early 1920s, upscale beach clubs
began to open along Santa Monica’s beaches, with the Casa Del Mar at Pico Boulevard (the southern end
of Schader’s developments) being one of the most successful, and grand homes (some for celebrities) were
built on the “Gold Coast” north of the pier (Basten 1974:110). A number of modest apartment buildings,
tenements, and lodgings were constructed on the east side of Ocean Avenue through the 1920s and 1930s,
and the Seaside Terrace Apartments advertised hotel and guest rooms, in addition to apartment suites (1918
Sanborn map; Los Angeles Times January 26, 1919). Of the tenants of the Ocean Front Walk apartments
who were listed in the city directories, few remained from year to year (1918, 1919-20, 1923-1924, 1925
Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle and Westgate Directories; 1927, 1928 Bay Cities Directory).
John S. Stotler was still listed as a resident of 18 Arcadia Terrace when he died in 1931; Carl F. Schader
died in 1934 (although he and his wife were not listed as living in the Selkirk Apartments or on Arcadia
Terrace after 1931) (City of Santa Monica 2017:84; Find A Grave n.d.a). Street addresses on Appian Way
were renumbered in the mid-1930s, with the former 18 Arcadia Terrace listed as 1665 Appian Way in the
1938 city directory.
Business declined at the Santa Monica pier and nearby beach area amusements during the Great Depression.
The Santa Monica pier’s operating company was foreclosed a number of times in the 1930s, before being
purchased by Walter Newcomb in 1943. The Pacific Electric’s rail line to Santa Monica and Ocean Park
was abandoned in 1953 due to competition and traffic congestion from private automobiles and buses,
resulting in a decrease in the residents from inland Los Angeles who visited the pier area on weekends and
holidays (Marquez 2004:46).
Impact of development and redevelopment in Santa Monica and the Appian Way Neighborhood, 1940s–
1970s
During World War II (WWII), Santa Monica-based Douglas Aircraft was a major defense contractor and
the city’s largest employer (Santa Monica Airport Association), which resulted in an influx of defense
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
6
workers to Santa Monica. The resulting housing shortage continued after the war, with the city’s population
increasing almost 34 percent between 1940 and 1950. As a result, single-family homes were “doubled-up”
to be used by as many as four families, some as boarding houses or with additional units constructed at the
rear, and vacation trailers were used as year-round housing (Storrs 1974:37-38). When building materials
became available again after the war, there was a building boom for commercial structures, homes, hotels,
and particularly apartments. A significant number of minimal apartment buildings were built across the city
using funding under the multi-family Section 608 of the federal government’s Housing Act of 1949, adding
to the number of new and transient residents in the area (Basten 1974:180; Storrs 1974:41). In addition, in
the years after WWII, more than 100 units of temporary veteran housing were assembled in the block
between Ocean Avenue and City Hall, south of Seaside Terrace, using surplus Army buildings (Storrs
1974:43; 1918-1950 Sanborn maps).
The southern part of Santa Monica and the Ocean Park area, south of Pico Boulevard, which had been built
out with modest homes by the 1930s, stagnated after WWII. Its orientation toward pier amusements was
obsolete, with beach cottages sold at depressed prices (Wenzel 1994:43). In the 1940s, Ocean Park’s
residential area west of 4th Street was described as “densely built-up second class residential,” and was
included on a 1953 map of blighted areas in the city, with its narrow streets, high density, and modest homes
described as substandard structures.
The Muscle Beach area, adjacent to the south side of the Santa Monica pier, became a site for impromptu
gymnastics shows about 1934 and the free entertainment began to draw crowds of spectators (Figure 28).
Although acrobatic/gymnastic and fitness exhibitions increased there during the 1940s and 1950s, the pier’s
condition declined prior to pier owner Walter Newcomb’s death in 1954 (Marquez 2004:46). Some criminal
activity involving body builders contributed to the closing of Santa Monica’s Muscle Beach in 1959 (it was
subsequently relocated to Venice Beach), with the Santa Monica pier area seen as attracting hustlers and
petty criminals (Stanton 1990).
A Modern-style City of Santa Monica Lifeguard Headquarters building was constructed in 1955 at 1642
Ocean Front, adjacent to the Muscle Beach area; this building has been recommended eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources, as well as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. Winter storms
damaged the pier in the late 1950s, and after serving as a roller skating rink beginning in 1958, the La
Monica Ballroom was demolished in 1963 (Basten 1974:147). Changing pier attractions drew a low-end
audience to the carousel, a bumper car ride, pinball arcade, and carnival games, and a number of drug abuse
and overdose incidents were reported on the beach (Verge 2007:94). Yet as was the case in other California
cities during this period, the unique atmosphere and low rent at the pier attracted artists and musicians, with
seven unheated apartments above the carousel rented by artists, actors, and writers; additional inexpensive
apartments were located above the stores on Ocean Front Walk adjacent to the pier (Stanton 1990) (Figure
29). Whether the units at 1665-1671 Appian Way experienced similar transience cannot be determined
because reverse city directories are not publicly available after 1960-1961. What is clear is that the older
densely built environment along the Ocean Front to the north of 1665-1671 Appian Way was not well
maintained in this period, and the buildings and public amenities became weathered and deteriorated
(Figure 30).
The movement toward urban renewal, begun in 1950, led to the 1958 designation of 25 acres of Ocean Park
as a redevelopment district, the demolition of the majority of low-income homes and structures in this area
in 1961, and the subsequent construction of condominiums (Scott 2004:130; Storrs 1974:44; Wenzel
1994:44-50). In 1957-1958, the Ocean Park Pier was reconstructed as Pacific Ocean Park (POP), which
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
7
was intended as a competitor to the new Disneyland theme park, but POP closed due to bankruptcy in 1967
and was demolished in 1974. The Newcomb pier was sold to the City of Santa Monica in the early 1970s,
and due to physical deterioration, the Santa Monica City Council voted to demolish both the municipal pier
and the Newcomb pier in 1973. The concrete esplanade/Ocean Front Walk between the Santa Monica pier
and Venice was relocated and reconfigured along nearly its entire length, evolving from a boardwalk mostly
lined with buildings to a meandering two-lane concrete-paved bike path across the beach (Gershenhorn
2016:12). Throughout the city, older single-family homes were replaced by medium-density apartment
buildings in this period (Wenzel 1994:54).
Construction of the Santa Monica Freeway, which was completed in 1966, also removed historic
neighborhood fabric through the center of the city. Surviving older areas in Ocean Park began to attract
students, political activists, and young urban professionals, who represented the precursors of gentrification
(Wenzel 1994:63-64). In 1979, the Santa Monica Rent Control amendment was passed, intended to address
the city’s housing shortage and stabilize moderate rents to ensure that multi-family property owners
received no more than a fair return (City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board). However, the
implementation of rent control increased the demand for, and shortage of, affordable housing in Santa
Monica. Writing about the long-term effect of Santa Monica’s 1929, 1937, and 1948 zoning ordinances,
Storrs (1974:43) noted that the pattern of land use they encoded resulted in four out of five residents of
Santa Monica being apartment dwellers by 1974.
1984 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Elements and redevelopment near Appian Way
In 1984, the City of Santa Monica adopted updated Land Use and Circulation Elements to its General Plan.
Its findings for the city’s Oceanfront area noted that it had “dramatically declined since its early days when
the Promenade and Pier were lined with hotels, bathhouses, ballrooms, and restaurants” (City of Santa
Monica 1984:42). The multi-family residences at 1665-1671 Appian Way are part of this Oceanfront area,
a special purpose district combining visitor-serving uses with existing residential, public recreation, and
cultural uses (City of Santa Monica 1984:64-65). As a guide for the city’s future growth, the Land Use
Element’s Plan Principles described the Oceanfront as a “unique and valuable resource which can become
an extraordinarily attractive site for visitor- and recreation activities,” and noted the potential of its
development for visitor-serving uses to enhance the City’s future revenue position, as well as providing an
amenity to city residents and creating entry-level or low-skilled jobs (City of Santa Monica 1984:51, 75).
Its recommendations included allowing new hotels on Ocean Avenue, devoting the Oceanfront District
primarily to visitor accommodations and commercial recreation while protecting the existing residential
mix (City of Santa Monica 1984:87-88). In 1988, the Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel was built on Ocean
Avenue at Pacific Terrace, followed in 1999 by the neighboring J.W. Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot.
Multi-family housing of a similar scale, the SeaCastle Apartments, was built in 2001 on Appian Way.
Integrity
Although the two Appian Way multi-family buildings’ exterior finishes are weathered with some
deteriorating elements, and an inappropriate addition has been built on the 1665 unit, they maintain their
overall integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. This analysis is in part based on aerial images of
the buildings from the 1920s, in which it is evident that the essential form, features, and materials of the
buildings have not been altered. The building is still in its original location, as such, retaining integrity of
location. While there has been some diminishment to its setting with the construction of the nearby hotels
and multi-family housing, enough of its historic setting remains for sufficient retention of integrity of
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
8
setting. The buildings still convey a strong association of feeling and association—they would be easily
recognized today by someone who lived there in the 1910s or later through their period of significance
(1911-1940; beginning with the date of construction, and ending with the build-out of similar modest
housing in southern Santa Monica and the changing housing trends during and after World War II.)
Person(s) of historic importance:
The property has been owned by eight individuals, siblings, and spouses/partners, one family trust, two
corporations, and one limited partnership. However, none of the previous owners are known to be
considered persons of historic importance.
Table 1. Chain of Ownership
Date Grantor Grantee
1911 John S. Stotler*
1938 John S. Stotler Kate and Amos Travis
1942 Kate and Amos Travis Homer D. and Virginia Gray
April 1956 Homer D. and Virginia Gray** Ralph H. Osborne et al., 1700 Ocean
Ave. Corp.
August 1956 Ralph H. Osborne et al., 1700 Ocean
Ave. Corp.
Harry Resnick and Beatrice G. Salans
1961 Harry Resnick and Beatrice G. Salans George E. Shaw
1976 George E. Shaw Florence J. Baker
1984 Florence J. Baker Norman Goldman
1988 Norman W. Goldman Glenn Goldman
1989 Glenn Goldman Glenn L. Goldman Trust
2005 Glenn L. Goldman Trust Glenn L. Goldman, Alan Kapilow, and
Michael J. Sarlo
June 2014 Glenn L. Goldman Trust Security FSE One Hundred
September 2014 Security FSE One Hundred Shyle LP
* In the 1926-1938 L.A. County Assessor map book, John Stotler is noted as Heirs of Arthur B. Hutchason (Adm.)
** In 1961, a City of Santa Monica building permit for the repair of termite damage shows Mrs. V. Grey as the owner
John S. Stotler
Its first owner was John S. Stotler, who was a native of the Penn Township (now Penn Hills) area of western
Pennsylvania, a coal and limestone mining area on the Allegheny River adjacent to Pittsburgh that had been
established in the 1860s (WTAE 2012). His father is shown in the 1870 and 1880 censuses as a farmer.
Another Stotler family is shown nearby, with their neighbors listed as farmers and coal miners (1880 10th
U.S. Census). In 1898, John Stoner Stotler registered to vote in Ballarat in Inyo County, and by 1908, he
was noted in a Los Angeles Times article about Inyo Mine producers as being the general manager of the
Resting Spring Mining Company, developed in connection with the Tonopah & Tidewater Railroad, that
included investors in Los Angeles and in Pittsburgh (Los Angeles Times November 22, 1908). It is possible
that Stotler first became acquainted with Carl F. Schader through their common mining interests. When
first mentioned in one of Schader’s ads as having purchased a lot in the Seaside Terrace development,
Stotler is noted as being from Hollywood (although he and his wife Clara are shown in the 1910 census
living on West 39th Street in Los Angeles) and his occupation was listed in the census as “mining” (Los
Angeles Times August 13, 1911; 1910 13th U.S. Census).
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
9
Like Schader, Stotler invested in real estate although at a smaller scale, including a 10-acre orange grove
in Ontario and a lot in Rancho Cucamonga in 1912, a lot in Schader’s Kensington Terrace development in
1915, and a residence in Huntington Beach by 1923 (Los Angeles Times January 7, 1912; San Bernardino
County Sun January 28, 1912; Los Angeles Times March 28, 1915; Santa Ana Register August 2, 1923).
The Stotlers were mentioned in a 1915 Society column in the Los Angeles Times as attending a party given
by the Schaders at the Selkirk Apartments on Ocean Front (Los Angeles Times May 23, 1915), and J. S.
Stotler was part of the “Beach Sands” committee when Schader became the president of the Santa Monica-
Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce in 1922 (Los Angeles Times December 31, 1922). He was also part of
Schader’s syndicate which in 1923 purchased a 90-acre walnut grove at Washington and Centinela
Boulevards (in present-day Culver City) for subdivision into a business and residential subdivision. The
1930 census listed J. S. Stotler, still living in his unit on Appian Way, as a stock investor, and his household
included a 59-year-old servant/nurse. He died the following year (1930 15th U.S. Census; Los Angeles Times
December 10, 1931).
No information was located about significant contributions made by John S. Stotler to the Santa Monica
community or its built environment.
Kate and Amos Travis
The next owners, Kate and Amos Travis, were siblings, and descendants of the prominent Yorba family.
The family of their father, J. Coleman Travis, had relocated from Alabama to Los Angeles in 1869, and
bought an 800-acre ranch near present-day Orange in 1871. In 1898, their father married Zoraida B. Yorba,
the granddaughter of Bernardo Yorba who had received a 180,000-acre land grant in 1835 and built the
family homestead in Santa Ana Canyon (Armor 1921:320-325; FamilySearch n.d.a). J. Coleman Travis
was the superintendent of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, and also owned a 60-acre orange ranch
near Orange, where he was shown in the 1900 census as a fruit grower (1900 12th U.S. Census).
Kate Travis was born at the ranch in 1902, and Amos Travis was born in 1906. J. Coleman Travis
subsequently bought the 249-acre Esperanza Ranch in the Yorba township of Orange County, which had
previously belonged to his father-in-law Prudencia Yorba, but by 1910, the family was living in Santa
Monica. Their 1910 census location is noted to be on “Arcadia Beach” and J. Coleman Travis’ occupation
was listed as “own money” (1910 13th U.S. Census). In 1917, the family moved back to the Esperanza
Ranch, where J. Coleman Travis died in 1919 (Armor 1921:325). The four children appear in the 1930
census living in Santa Ana Canyon, and Amos and his older brother J. Coleman Travis are shown as a
laborer and a foreman, respectively, on a citrus ranch (1930 15th U.S. Census). Zoraida Travis died in 1933.
J. Coleman Travis apparently owned Lots 37 and 38 of Carl F. Schader’s Seaside Terrace tract (located at
Arcadia Terrace and Ocean Avenue, where the Langdon Motel/Hotel California/Sea Blue Hotel would be
built in 1947) at the time of his death; an announcement of their sale to the highest bidder by the guardian
of Amos Travis’ estate was listed in the Los Angeles Times in 1923 (Santa Ana Register July 25, 1923).
Kate and Amos Travis were not listed in the Santa Monica city directories during the years they owned the
1665-1671 Appian Way property; they appear to have spent the remainder of their lives in Santa Ana. No
other information about this Amos Travis (his grandfather had the same name) or Kate Travis was located,
and they are not known to have made significant contributions to Santa Monica.
Homer D. and Virginia Gray
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
10
No biographical information could be located for Homer D. Gray or Virginia Gray. Mrs. V. H. Gray was
listed in the city directory as living in the 1669 Appian Way unit in 1947-1948, and Homer D. Gray was
shown as the occupant of 1665 Appian Way from 1952-1953 until the last available reverse directory in
1960-1961. No information was located about significant contributions they made to the city.
Ralph H. Osborne and 1700 Ocean Avenue Corporation
1700 Ocean Avenue Corporation was a California corporation whose main asset was the Surf Rider Inn
Motel in 1960, when the corporation was in Chapter XI bankruptcy (Court Listener n.d.). Listed in the city
directories as the Surf Auto Hotel at 1704-1712 Ocean Avenue from 1947-1948 through 1954, it became
the Surf Rider Inn by 1958, with Ralph H. Osborne listed as owner (1947-1948, 1952-1953, 1954, 1958-
1959 city directories). Osborne’s name was among those listed as the property owners of Lots 38-40 on
Arcadia Terrace (the Langdon Motel/Beach Auto Hotel, present-day Sea Blue Hotel) in 1956, as was
Resnick (Los Angeles County Assessor 1956-1960 map book). In the 1960-1961 city directory, the Surf
Rider Inn’s address was listed as 1700 Ocean Avenue, and its owner as C. P. Chryss. The 1700 Ocean
Avenue property is now occupied by the Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel. No biographical information
was located about Osborne, and there was no documentation of his having made significant contributions
to the Santa Monica area.
Harry Resnick and Beatrice Salans
No definitive biographical information was located for Harold or Harry Resnick. Resnick’s name was listed
as the owner in a 1948 application for a building permit for the six-unit multi-family building at 36 Arcadia
Terrace, at the east end of the walk-street; Resnick’s home address was shown on the application on
Hollister Avenue in Ocean Park. The 36 Arcadia Terrace building became part of the adjacent hotel at 1670
Ocean Avenue, then named the Langdon Motel, of which Resnick was shown in the Los Angeles County
assessors’ records as one of the owners in 1956. By 1958, the hotel on Ocean Avenue was renamed the
Beach Auto Hotel, and continued under that name in directory listings through 1991. No additional digitized
building, electrical, plumbing, or inspection records for the 1670 Ocean Avenue property are available at
the City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department.
The California Death Index for Beatrice Grade Salans (1893-1957) notes her mother’s family name was
Resnik, suggesting that she was related to Harry Resnick. The Find-A-Grave website lists Beatrice’s
husband as Max Salans (1888-1948), and a 1942 draft registration card for Max Salans indicates he was a
native of Poland and lived in Ocean Park (FamilySearch n.d.b; Find A Grave n.d.b).
From the information available, Harry Resnick and Beatrice Salans are not known to have made significant
contributions to Santa Monica.
George E. Shaw
As George and Shaw are both common names, no definitive biographical information was located for the
individual who owned the 1665-1671 Appian Way property between 1961 and 1976. Digitized electrical,
plumbing, and building permits at the City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department indicate
maintenance and upgrading work was done in the multi-family units, including the repair of termite damage,
replacement of water heaters, and installation or relocation of outlets. A 1973 building permit notes it is for
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
11
the repair of fire damage, apparently at the front of the 1665 Appian Way unit, with no structural damage
having occurred (see Figure 16). George E. Shaw was not found to have made a significant contribution to
the city.
Florence J. Baker
Due to Florence and Baker both being common names, no definitive biographical information was located
for the individual who owned the 1665-1671 Appian Way property between 1976 and 1984. An electrical
permit was obtained in 1982, but no additional information appeared on the permit application.
Norman W. Goldman, Glenn L. Goldman, Glenn L. Goldman Trust
Because Norman, Glenn, and Goldman are common names, no definitive biographical information was
located for the individuals who owned the 1665-1671 Appian Way property between 1984 and 2014.
References
Armor, Samuel
1921 “Mrs. Zoraida B. Travis.” In History of Orange County, California, Historic Record Company,
Los Angeles, California. Available online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yhMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=%22histo
ry+of+orange+county%22+california+zoraida+yorba&source=bl&ots=znt0Q4EHpc&sig=kqbM
EfJC5aYtICa31FdKLJm8RT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzwoS705TZAhVMQ6wKHZH2B
50Q6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22history%20of%20orange%20county%22%20california%20
zoraida%20yorba&f=false, 320-325).
Basten, Fred E.
1974 Santa Monica Bay, the First 100 Years. Douglas-West Publishers, Los Angeles, California.
2001 Santa Monica Bay, Paradise by the Sea. Hennessy+Ingalls, Santa Monica, California.
Chattel, Inc.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment: 1601-1619 Ocean Front Walk, Santa Monica, California.
City of Santa Monica
1984 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). Revised 2002.
2017 City of Santa Monica Draft Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement
(Revised). Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, Pasadena, California.
2018 “Pier History,” Office of Pier Management,
https://www.smgov.net/Departments/OPM/content.aspx?id=30821, accessed February 6, 2018.
n.d. “Overview.” City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board website,
https://www.smgov.net/Overview.aspx, accessed February 13, 2018.
Court Listener
n.d. 1700 Ocean Avenue Corporation, a California Corporation v. GBR Associates, a Foreign
Corporation. Available online, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/270260/1700-ocean-
avenue-corporation-a-california-corporation-v-gbr-associates/, accessed February 7, 2018.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
12
Crown, Sara
2018 Archivist, Santa Monica History Museum. Personal e-mail. January 23.
FamilySearch.org (FamilySearch)
n.d.a “California, County Marriages, 1850-1952.” Online database with images,
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K8DN-3FY, accessed December 10, 2017.
n.d.b “United States World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942.” Online database with images,
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V4DC-9B1, accessed November 8, 2017.
Findagrave.com (Find A Grave)
n.d.a “Carl Francis Schader, Sr.” https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/31844938/carl-f-schader,
accessed February 28, 2018.
n.d.b “Beatrice Salans.” https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/89616237/beatrice-salans, accessed
February 28, 2018.
Gershenhorn, Suki
2016 City of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Application, Purser Apartments, 1659 Ocean Front
Walk. City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division.
Goodrich, Andrew
2018 Architectural Resources Group. Personal telephone call regarding reconnaissance survey for 2017
Draft of Santa Monica Historic Resource Inventory Update.
Los Angeles County Assessor
1956-1960 Los Angeles County Assessor Map Book 327.
Los Angeles Herald
1910 “Santa Monica Aroused to Greatest Activity.” July 31.
Los Angeles Times
1908 “Gladstone is New Shipper.” November 22.
1909 “For Site of Arcadia, Big Resort is Planned.” June 20.
1910 “Schader Buys on Sea Front.” April 3.
____. “New Beach Front Plans for Newer Santa Monica.” July 3.
1911 “Building Active at Beach.” April 25.
____. “Entrance Is Unique.” July 30.
____. “Arcadia Terrace Private Terrace.” August 13.
____. “Fine Hotel Is Rumor.” October 1.
1912 “Report Grove Sale.” January 7.
____. “Official Record.” January 28.
1914 “Kensington Terrace.” March 15.
____. “Occupies Site of Old Terminus;” “Seaside Terrace, Look at It Now” full page display ad.
April 12.
____. “To Let – New House, Newly Furnished.” June 7.
1915 “Nearly Closed Out.” March 28, 1915.
____. “Society.” May 23.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
13
____. “Cutting Down to Build Up at Santa Monica.” September 26.
1919 “For Sale and For Rent.” January 26.
1922 “Beach Cities Combine.” December 31.
1931 “Deaths.” December 10.
Marquez, Ernest
2004 Santa Monica Beach: A Collector’s Pictorial History. Angel City Press, Santa Monica,
California.
Oxnard Courier
1910 “City of Santa Monica Is Taking on Improvements.” July 22.
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps
1918-1950 Santa Monica map.
Santa Ana Register
1923 “Notice of Sale of Real Property at Private Sale by Guardian, No. 15039.” July 25.
____. “Recent Building Permits at Beach.” August 2.
Santa Monica Airport Association
n.d. “SMO’s History.” Published online by, http://www.santamonicaairport.info/smo-history,
accessed January 26, 2018.
Santa Monica city directories
1915-1916 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1917 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1918 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1919-1920 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1923-1924 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1925 Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, and Westgate City Directories.
1927 Bay Cities Directory
1928 Bay Cities Directory
1930-1931 Bay Cities Directory
1933 Bay Cities Directory
1938 Bay Cities Directory
1940 Santa Monica, California, City Directory
1947-1948 Santa Monica, California, City Directory
1952-1953 Santa Monica, California, City Directory
1954 Santa Monica, California, City Directory
1958-1959 Santa Monica, California, City Directory
Scott, Paula A.
2004 Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Available
online,
https://books.google.com/books?id=rJ5kSvG6GI4C&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=1950s+santa+
monica+civic+center&source=bl&ots=5TiObfFMWH&sig=8Rwf7pNKBaY-4XMSA-
DbPdQoaFU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1lpCm3PvYAhUBc60KHQLdCLoQ6AEIZjAN#v
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Santa Monica Landmark Application for 1665-1671 Appian Way
14
=onepage&q=1950s%20santa%20monica%20civic%20center&f=false, accessed January 29,
2018.
Stanton, Jeffrey
1990 Santa Monica Pier: A History from 1875 to 1990. Donohue Publishing Company, Santa Monica,
California.
Storrs, Les
1974 Santa Monica: Portrait of a City, Yesterday and Today. Santa Monica Bank, Santa Monica,
California.
U.S. Census Bureau.
1998 Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 1790 to 1990.
Washington D.C.
Verge, Arthur C.
2007 Images of America: Santa Monica Lifeguards. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Wenzel, Karen M.
1994 The Impact of Historic Preservation on Land Use Planning in Ocean Park, Santa Monica,
California. Master’s thesis. California State University, Northridge, California.
WTAE Pittsburgh’s Action News 4
2012 “Penn Hills Then & Now.” Available online, http://www.wtae.com/article/in-photos-penn-hills-
then-now/7399823, accessed February 6, 2018.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
1665-1671 APPIAN WAY FIGURES
Figure 1: 1665 Appian Way at Arcadia Terrace, view to east‐northeast.
Figure 2: 1665 Appian Way at Pacific Terrace, view to north‐northeast.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 3: 1665 Appian Way view to south‐southwest with Purser Apartments on right side.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 4: 1918 Santa Monica Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, page 19.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 5: Illustration of lower Arcadia Terrace entrance, Los Angeles Times July 30, 1911.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 6: 1922 aerial view of Arcadia Terrace.
Figure 7: 1671 Appian Way wood siding at southeast façade.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 8: 1665 Appian Way wood siding pattern.
Figure 9: 1665 Appian Way window trim, view to east.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 10: 1665 Appian Way gate at passage between buildings, view to east.
Figure 11: 1665 Appian Way, stair between double bungalows, view to northeast.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 12: 1665 Appian Way roof, view to south.
Figure 13: 1665 Appian Way roof deck, view to west.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 14: Passage between NW facade of 1665 Appian Way and Arcadia Terrace stair, view to
southwest.
Figure 15: 1665 Appian Way, fencing around Arcadia Terrace south entry portal, view to east.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 16: 1665 Appian Way, fire damage sketch from 1973 building permit.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 17: Duplex bungalow at Fifth and Bay Streets in Ocean Park.
Figure 18: 1920 double bungalow plan.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 19: Scott’s Addition in 1902‐1910 Los Angeles County Assessor Map Book 327 index.
Figure 20: Seaside Terrace in 1919‐26 Los Angeles County Assessor Map Book 327 Index.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 21: Schader’s “Seaside Terrace… Look At It Now” display ad, Los Angeles Times April 14, 1912.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 22: 1890 south Santa Monica beach in front of Arcadia Hotel. (Photo: Water and Power
Associates, Early Views of Santa Monica)
Figure 23: Ocean Park cottages on the beach looking toward Santa Monica, 1898‐1909, detail. (Photo:
Huntington Digital Library 489989)
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 24: 1924 aerial view of Santa Monica pier. (Photo: Huntington Digital Library 487585)
Figure 25: 1924 aerial detail of Santa Monica pier, detail. (Photo: Huntington Digital Library 487585)
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 26: Los Angeles Times display ad showing Pacific Electric lines to Schader’s developments, June 4
1911.
Figure 27: 1920s Santa Monica beach, north of the pier. (Photo: Santa Monica Public Library Archives,
Adelbert Bartlett, Carolyn Farnham Collection C162.)
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 28: Undated crowds watching Muscle Beach.
Figure 29: 1950s former hotel and apartment building.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
Figure 30: Circa 1950 Ocean Front Walk at Seaside Terrace, view of buildings north to pier.
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) LM Application and Historic Report (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: 21ENT-0253 (1665 Appian Way) APP Application (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: 21ENT-0253 (1665 Appian Way) APP Application (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: 21ENT-0253 (1665 Appian Way) APP Application (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: 21ENT-0253 (1665 Appian Way) APP Application (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica, CA
Historic Assessment Report
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
Prepared by:
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012
September 2, 2021
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2. Preparer Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 3
2. Architectural Description ................................................................................................................. 4
2.1. General Setting .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Building Exterior ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3. Site and Landscape Features .............................................................................................................. 6
3. Development Chronology and Alterations ..................................................................................... 11
3.1. History of the Subject Property ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2. Development Chronology ................................................................................................................ 12
3.3. Alterations ........................................................................................................................................ 12
4. Historic Contexts ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.1. Neighborhood Development: Seaside Terrace ................................................................................ 14
4.2. Multi-Family Housing ....................................................................................................................... 16
5. Evaluation of Significance ............................................................................................................... 18
5.1. Previous Surveys and Evaluations .................................................................................................... 18
5.3. Evaluation of Local Significance ....................................................................................................... 18
5.3. Evaluation of Integrity ...................................................................................................................... 23
6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26
7. Bibliogaphy .................................................................................................................................... 27
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2
1. Introduction
1.1. Executive Summary
At the request of the City of Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department (the
City), Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has prepared this Historic Assessment Report for the
property located at 1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica. The property contains a one-story, four-unit
multi-family residential building that was constructed in 1914.1 Designed in a vernacular style, the
building was constructed by building contractor F.N. Jones for original owner John S. Stotler.
The property is included in the City of Santa Monica’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). In the most
recent update of the HRI, which was completed in 2018, the property was identified as individually
eligible for local designation as a Santa Monica Landmark and was assigned the corresponding California
Historical Resource Status Code of 5S3: “appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation
through survey evaluation.”
In March 2021, an application nominating the property as a Santa Monica Landmark was submitted to
the City. ARG was asked to complete a Historic Assessment Report for the property to determine if it
satisfies the City’s designation criteria for Landmark and/or Structure of Merit eligibility. Preparation of
this report included the following tasks related to research, documentation, and analysis:
• Site visit in July 2021 to document existing conditions with digital photographs;
• Review of pertinent federal and state technical bulletins, local ordinances, and other reference
materials related to the evaluation of historical resources;
• Review of applicable background materials including historical building permits and the State of
California’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) database;
• Supplemental research about the property’s development history, design, occupancy, and
potential historical significance;
• Identification of applicable historic contexts and themes;
• Evaluation of the property against Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit eligibility
criteria; and
• Evaluation of the property’s integrity.
Research materials were obtained from the following sources:
• Online collections of the Los Angeles Public Library and the Santa Monica Public Library;
• Archives of the Los Angeles Times, the Santa Monica Outlook, and other local periodicals;
1 Original construction date gleaned from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3
• Building permit records obtained from the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community
Development Department;
• Technical assistance bulletins published by the National Park Service (NPS) and the California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP);
• Online repositories including Ancestry.com and Newspapers.com; and
• ARG’s in-house collection of architectural books and reference materials.
To conform with public health directives and safety protocols associated with the COVID-19 pandemic,
most research was conducted remotely using online repositories. A complete list of sources is included
in Section 7: Bibliography of this report.
In summary, ARG concludes that the property at 1665-1671 Appian Way appears to satisfy one of the
City’s Landmark Criteria (Criterion 1). In addition, ARG concludes that the property appears to satisfy
two of the City’s Structure of Merit Criteria (Criteria A and B.1). The following sections provide a
description of the property and its history, and a discussion of how the above-listed determinations of
eligibility were made.
1.2. Preparer Qualifications
This report was prepared by a qualified team of ARG architectural historians and historic preservation
planners who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR Part 61, in
the discipline of Architectural History.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4
2. Architectural Description
2.1. General Setting
1665-1671 Appian Way is located in an interstitial zone between the Downtown and Ocean Park
neighborhoods of Santa Monica. Located just south of the Santa Monica Pier and about a block west of
Santa Monica City Hall, this neighborhood is adjacent to the ocean and exhibits a moderate downward
slope as it approaches the water. Streets adhere to the skewed grid that is etched across most of Santa
Monica and approximates the contour of the coastline. Circulation consists of both vehicular streets and
pedestrian thoroughfares, most of which are oriented northeast-southwest. Two streets – Ocean
Avenue and Appian Way – travel northwest-southeast and transect the neighborhood lengthwise.
The neighborhood contains an eclectic mix of property types dating to multiple periods between the
early twentieth century and the present day. Key property types in the vicinity of the subject property
include multi-family dwellings of various sizes and scales, and hotels that take advantage of the
neighborhood’s adjacency to the ocean and nearby attractions. The neighborhood is anchored by the
Santa Monica Pier on the north, and by the Casa del Mar – a historic hotel dating to 1926 – on the south.
Location map. The location of the subject property is marked in yellow (Google Maps)
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5
The subject property is located on the east side of Appian Way, between Arcadia Terrace (northwest, a
pedestrian street) and Pacific Terrace (southeast, an auto street). The parcel is rectangular, is wider than
it is deep, and measures 4,430 square feet. The site is heavily graded. The lot lines abut Arcadia Terrace
(northwest), Pacific Terrace (southeast), and Appian Way (southwest). The northeast lot line abuts an
adjacent residential parcel that is presently under construction.
Parcel map. Boundaries of the subject property are marked in yellow (Google Maps)
2.2. Building Exterior
The parcel contains a 2,707-square-foot multi-family residential building that was built in 1914.2 The
building is one story in height, though it reads as slightly taller when viewed from the primary
(southwest) façade due to the grade of the site. The building sits on a concrete foundation and is
constructed of wood frame. It consists of two volumes, each of which is roughly rectangular in plan and
contains two dwelling units. The volumes are attached on the primary (southwest) façade by a
continuous cornice and parapet. The building is vernacular and lacks characteristics of a particular style.
2 Parcel dimensions and date of construction obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6
Each building volume capped by a flat roof. The roof was not visible at the time of ARG’s site visit, but
from aerial imagery it appears to be sheathed in rolled asphalt. The roof is spanned by a parapet and a
simple cornice. Squared attic vents are incorporated into the parapet. Exterior walls are clad in wood lap
siding. The exterior siding is unpainted and consists of boards that are installed at alternating heights.
The primary façade is oriented southwest, toward Appian Way. Features on this façade are
symmetrically composed. Fenestration consists of four tripartite window systems, each of which has a
central fixed wood window and flanking jalousie windows and sliding vinyl windows. There are also two
fixed wood windows spaced between the tripartite windows. Beneath each tripartite window, at street
level, is a ledge comprising wood corbels, brackets, posts, and beams. The northernmost ledge has been
removed, though its imprint is still visible.
Situated at the center of the primary façade is a narrow pedestrian court. Access to the court is
restricted by a wood gate. Surmounting the gate are two notched wood beams. Beyond the gate are
concrete steps and stoop. The steps feature a metal rail. The court provides ingress to two of the
building’s units, each consisting of a single paneled metal door. Metal sconces are affixed to the walls
adjacent to the doors. Several windows are oriented inward toward the court. Fenestration includes
multi-light fixed wood windows and sliding aluminum windows, some of which have metal security bars.
The southeast façade, which faces Pacific Terrace, also has ample street frontage. This façade has an
entrance to one of the building’s units, which consists of a single, unarticulated wood door. This
entrance is approached by concrete steps with a metal rail, and a concrete stoop. A metal sconce is
affixed to the wall adjacent to the door. Fenestration includes a tripartite window system, with a center
fixed wood window and flanking jalousie windows; four additional jalousie windows; and one wood
hopper window. All windows have wood surrounds; some also have metal security bars.
The northwest façade faces Arcadia Terrace (a pedestrian street). At the far west end of this façade,
nearest Appian Way, is a tripartite window comprising a center fixed wood window and flanking sliding
vinyl windows. These windows have wood surrounds. Near the center of this façade is a metal gate and
concrete steps. These steps lead to a porch that is an addition. The porch has a shed roof, wood post
supports, and a single wood door. Adjacent to the porch is a projecting volume – also an addition –
which is clad in vertical wood siding and has a sliding vinyl window. The porch and side addition are both
surmounted by wood decking and rails. The base of this façade is obscured by a wood fence.
The northeast façade is obscured from public view. Based on what could be observed from the public-
right-of-way, it appears to consist of glazed, paneled wood doors and wood windows. Metal canopies
surmount some of the door and window openings. A metal security gate obscures this façade from the
public-right-of-way along Pacific Terrace.
2.3. Site and Landscape Features
There are no landscape features of note, as the building is set flush with the sidewalk and occupies
almost all of the site. Site features are limited to the aforementioned narrow pedestrian court, and a
scored concrete driveway at the northwest end of the parcel where Appian Way meets Arcadia Terrace.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7
Current Photos
Primary/southwest façade, view northeast (ARG, 2021) Primary/southwest façade, view north (ARG, 2021)
Primary/southwest façade, view east (ARG, 2021) Southeast façade, view west (ARG, 2021)
Southeast façade, view north (ARG, 2021) Northwest façade, view northeast (ARG, 2021)
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8
Northeast façade, view northwest (ARG, 2021) Interior court, view northeast (ARG, 2021)
Entrance to interior court, view northeast. Note wood gate
and notched wood beams (ARG, 2021) Detail of wood ledge on primary/southwest façade, view
east (ARG, 2021)
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9
Historic Photos
Aerial view of Santa Monica Pier and environs, 1922. 1665-1671 Appian Way is visible at upper center and is marked in yellow
(Huntington Digital Library; annotation added by ARG)
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10
Aerial view of Santa Monica Pier and environs, 1922, zoomed in for clarity. 1665-1671 Appian Way is marked in yellow
(Huntington Digital Library; annotation added by ARG)
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11
3. Development Chronology and Alterations
3.1. History of the Subject Property
The subject property, 1665-1671 Appian Way, is located within the Carl F. Schader Seaside Terrace Tract.
Subdivided in 1910 by its eponym, developer Carl F. Schader, the tract is located south of the Santa
Monica Pier between Seaside Terrace (northwest), Marine Terrace (southeast), Ocean Avenue
(northeast), and the Pacific Ocean (southwest).3 The tract originally consisted of 61 parcels of varying
dimensions; the tract map also demarcates nineteen additional parcels to the west of Ocean Front Walk,
though that area was never a realistic site for development because of its adjacency to the shore.
Beginning in the 1910s, the tract was developed with an eclectic combination of uses including single-
family houses, apartment hotels, and multi-family flats. The subject property was built in 1914.4
Newspaper articles, city directories, Sanborn maps, and other source materials indicate that the
property was purpose-built as an income-producing multi-family dwelling comprising four individual
units. Its construction is mentioned in a Los Angeles Times article dated April 1914, which describes the
property as “two modern double bungalows,” completed at a cost of $8,000.5 The property was
constructed by building contractor Benjamin Jones for owner J.S. Stotler.6
Information about the life of original owner Stotler is scant.7 John Stoner Stotler was born in
Pennsylvania in 1862. He moved to California in 1885, and by the late nineteenth century was among a
handful of people who settled in Ballarat, a rural community in Inyo County that was founded in 1896 as
a supply point for nearby silver mines. In Ballarat, Stotler worked as a merchant, and in 1897 he was
appointed as its postmaster. Census data and city directories indicate that Stotler had moved to
Southern California by the early twentieth century, initially residing in South Los Angeles before setting
in Santa Monica. Later in life, Stotler was working as a small-scale real estate investor and developer.
In 1914, Stotler commissioned the four-unit subject building, which served as both as his personal
residence and as an income-producing property. Stotler lived in the northernmost dwelling unit
(originally 18 Arcadia Terrace, now 1665 Appian Way) with his wife, Clara Stotler (1867-1933) until his
death in 1931, at age 69.8 The other three adjoining units were rented out to tenants by the Stotlers.
Subsequent owners are numerous and included Kate and Amos Travis; Homer and Virginia Gray; Ralph
Osborne; Harry Resnick and Beatrice Salans; George Shaw; Florence Baker; Norman Goldman; Glenn
Goldman, Alan Kapilow, and Michael Sarlo; Security FSE One Hundred; and Shyle LP.9
3 Subdivision map of Carl F. Schader’s Seaside Terrace Tract, Map Book 17 (10-11), recorded Aug. 1910, accessed Aug. 2021 via
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
4 Original construction date obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.
5 “Occupies Site of Old Terminus,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 12, 1914.
6 “Building Permits,” The Daily Outlook, Apr. 3, 1914.
7 Biographical information about Stotler gleaned from Ancestry.com (various databases), accessed Aug. 2021.
8 “Announce Services for Old Resident,” Evening Outlook, Dec. 10, 1931.
9 Derived from “Table 1. Chain of Ownership,” included in the Landmark nomination submitted Mar. 18, 2021.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12
Typical of rental housing, the subject building has been home to many tenants between its original
construction and the present day. From census data and city directories, it is known that tenants were
generally single boarders or married households, and were employed in a variety of common vocations.
The four street addresses associated with the subject building have changed over time. What was
originally 18 Arcadia Terrace became 1665 Appian Way; 1601 Appian Way became 1667 Appian Way;
1603 Appian Way became 1669 Appian Way; and 1605 Appian Way became 1671 Appian Way. Research
suggests that adjustments to the street addresses occurred in the early 1930s.
3.2. Development Chronology
This section summarizes key events in the property’s developmental history between its original
construction and the present day. The information was compiled primarily from historic building permit
records obtained from the City of Santa Monica Community Development Department. It was
augmented by additional sources including historic aerial images, Sanborn fire insurance maps, parcel
data obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, and other pertinent source materials.
In addition to these building permits, various plumbing and electrical permits have been issued for the
subject property. However, they are not listed in the table above as the work associated with these
permits was minor in scope and did not result in any visible changes to the building or its key features.
3.3. Alterations
The following alterations were noted during a site visit conducted by ARG staff in July 2021, and by
comparing current and previous photos of the subject property. If an alteration is documented in the
permit record and/or other source materials, the year that the alteration took place is listed
parenthetically. However, most alterations are not noted in the permit record and/or other sources.
• An addition and decking were appended to the side (northwest) façade
• A recessed porch serving the unit at 1665 Appian Way was infilled
• One bracketed wood ledge was removed from the primary/southwest façade (ca. 2008)
1914 Original construction of the subject property; sources alternatively identify the
improvements as “flats” and “double bungalows.” No architect is listed; F.N. Jones is listed as
the contractor; J.S. Stotler is listed as the owner (City of Santa Monica Ledger, Apr. 2, 1914).
1961 Permit issued to repair termite damage. Ace Termite Control is listed as the contractor; Mrs.
V. Grey is listed as the owner (Permit No. B30445).
1973 Permit issued to repair fire damage. The contractor’s name is illegible; George Shaw is listed
as the owner (Permit No. B45643).
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13
• All original doors were replaced
• Some original windows were replaced
• Non-original security bars were affixed to some windows
• A non-original metal stair rail was added to the southeast façade
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14
4. Historic Contexts
4.1. Neighborhood Development: Seaside Terrace
1665-1671 Appian Way is located within the Seaside Terrace tract. Located immediately south of the
Santa Monica Pier, Seaside Terrace was an early attempt on the part of developers to redevelop prime
ocean frontage to capitalize on Santa Monica’s prevailing culture of recreation, leisure, and tourism.
Santa Monica is the third-oldest city in Los Angeles County, having been incorporated in 1886.10 By
virtue of its picturesque location along the coast and its idyllic climate, Santa Monica, as well as the
neighboring communities of Ocean Park and Venice, emerged as popular destinations among Southern
Californians and tourists alike in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. Bathhouses, hotels,
amusement piers, and various other tourist-oriented developments were erected along the coast in the
latter decades of the nineteenth century, many of which were marketed as “Coney Island” style
attractions – drawing an overt connection with the popular entertainment destination in New York.11
One of the foremost local attractions of this era was the Arcadia Hotel. Built in 1887, and prominently
sited astride a bluff between present-day Colorado Street and Pico Boulevard, the hotel epitomized
luxury and elegance. It was housed within a large, imposing structure designed in the then-fashionable
Queen Anne style. In addition to its well-appointed guest rooms, the hotel featured such amenities as
“hot and cold running water, electric and gas lights, and indoor bathrooms,” as well as a switchback
roller coaster. Beachgoers were known to congregate in droves along the shore adjacent to the hotel.12
However, the fortunes of the Arcadia Hotel waxed and waned. By the early twentieth century, it had
fallen on hard times – in large part due to the dramatic ebbs and flows in the economy that had taken
place in the late nineteenth century. Other modes of development – particularly residential
development – were becoming increasingly lucrative. The hotel eventually closed. In 1909, developer
Carl F. Schader purchased the shuttered hotel as well as several acres of adjoining land, and set out to
redevelop his acquisition into a “mixed-use residential and resort area that would make Santa Monica
the ‘Atlantic City of the West.’”13 He razed the hotel in 1909 and subdivided its former grounds into two
side-by-side tracts: Seaside Terrace and Vicente Terrace.
Schader’s decision to raze and redevelop the hotel coincided with the construction of the Santa Monica
Municipal Pier, which opened in 1909. While it was originally intended to serve the City’s sanitation
needs, the 1,600-foot-long concrete pier “quickly became a magnet for the fishing community and
fueled the imagination of many local entrepreneurs” like Schader, who foresaw the area around the pier
as eventually developing into a recreational hub and sought to capitalize on this development.14
10 Santa Monica Conservancy, “History of Santa Monica,” online, accessed Aug. 2021.
11 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update Historic Context Statement, prepared by Architectural Resources
Group and Historic Resources Group, Mar. 2018, 154.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid, 95; “Display Ad 204,” Los Angeles Times, Jun. 18, 1911.
14 City of Santa Monica, “Pier History,” accessed Aug. 2021.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15
Seaside Terrace included 61 parcels; Vicente Terrace was slightly smaller, tallying in at 44 parcels. Both
were platted according to a modified rectilinear grid that conformed to the contour of the adjacent
coast and bluffs. Early planning of Seaside Terrace is described in a Los Angeles Times article from 1910:
The City Council has adopted the maps of Seaside Terrace Tract, which embraces the old Hotel
Arcadia grounds, and the work of converting the property into a residence district is soon to be
commenced. Running through it from north to south is a winding boulevard at the edge of the
bluff. This is to be known as Appian Way, and the plan is to extend it from Colorado street and
the municipal pier on the north to Fremont avenue (now known as Pico Boulevard) and the
ocean terminus of the Los Angeles airline boulevard on the south.15
The tract was transected by a pedestrian walkway that ran parallel to the ocean. Reporting on its
construction in 1909, the Los Angeles Times observed that “a concrete esplanade, twenty feet wide,
protected by a bulkhead built on piles driven through the sand and gravel to a solid foundation, is about
to connect the new concrete pier at Colorado avenue, through the Seaside Terrace tract south to
Hollister Pier, making a continuous walk through Santa Monica, Ocean Park, and Venice, rivaling the
celebrated board walk at Atlantic City.”16 This esplanade is extant and is now called Ocean Front Walk.
Schader aggressively marketed the Seaside Terrace tract, regularly taking out advertisements in local
newspapers that promoted its abundance of developable lots and desirable location adjacent to the
Municipal Pier and other oceanfront amenities. His efforts proved fruitful; by the early 1910s, several
parcels within the tract were sold and developed with residential uses. The bluff that transected the
tract lengthwise effectively served as a dividing line between the different types of development that
ensued. Very generally speaking, lots at the base of the bluff and near the ocean were improved with
apartment hotels and commercial uses, while those on the streets atop the bluff were developed with
less intensive uses such as single-family houses and smaller-scale apartments and flats.
Prominent examples of early development in Seaside Terrace included the Seaside Terrace Apartments
(not extant) and the Selkirk Apartments (not extant). Both were built in 1911 along Ocean Front Walk as
apartment hotels that catered to tourists and other itinerant tenants seeking alternatives to the
conventional single-family house. So too was the Purser Hotel and Apartments (extant, designated as a
Santa Monica Landmark), which was constructed in 1913 at Appian Way and Arcadia Terrace.17
Smaller, more modest examples of development took place on the blocks east of Appian Way amid the
subdivision’s formative period of growth in the 1910s. Sanborn maps from 1918 show that on these
eastern blocks, early development was varied and consisted of single-family houses, apartments, and
flats. These maps also show that a majority of lots within the tract remained undeveloped at that time.
The tract filled out in subsequent decades, with many of the remaining empty lots developed with one-
and two-story multi-family dwellings in the 1920s, ‘30s, and ‘40s. Mixed-use structures were also
15 “With Their Eyes Open,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 13, 1910.
16 “Santa Monica Gets in Line: New Pier Gives Impetus to Big Improvements,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3, 1909.
17 “Purser Apartment Building, 1659 Ocean Front Walk, City Landmark Evaluation Assessment Report,” prepared by Ostashay and Associates, Jan. 2017, 8.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16
constructed along Ocean Avenue, and low-rise commercial buildings along Ocean Front Walk, during this
period, rounding out patterns of development within this area of the city.18
4.2. Multi-Family Housing
Through the early decades of the twentieth century, the residential landscape of Southern California
consisted almost entirely of single-family homes. There was no shortage of open, developable land on
which to build detached dwellings at this time. Single-family housing also reflected the prevailing
domestic ideal of this era. Multi-family housing, by contrast, evoked images of the squalid dirty
conditions of tenements in New York and other eastern cities, a perception that was fueled by housing
reform efforts of the late nineteenth century and the publication of Jacob Riis’s 1890 exposé How the
Other Half Lives, which documented the squalor endured by tenement dwellers in New York City.
Santa Monica was no exception. The City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement emphasizes that
multi-family development within the city was extremely rare in the late nineteenth century, and
remained rare through the early decades of the twentieth century. At this time, large hotels like the
aforementioned Arcadia often rented rooms to travelers and other itinerant types during the summer
months, but these properties were principally commercial – not residential – in function. Other multi-
family development at this time was scant, and was limited to a few parcels that contained two or more
small, free-standing cottages that technically fit the definition of multi-family housing but did not even
closely resemble multi-family housing as it is known today. The rarity of multi-family housing in early
Santa Monica is corroborated by the dearth of these properties in city directories. As noted in the City of
Santa Monica Historic Context Statement, “no apartment buildings are listed in the 1899 directory and
only one, the Kensington Apartments on S. Ocean Avenue, is listed in the 1907 directory.”19
Attitudes toward multi-family housing, both in Santa Monica and elsewhere in Southern California,
began to undergo a shift by the 1910s. This decade saw the construction of more purpose-built, multi-
family dwellings as Southern California witnessed an influx of new residents in addition to seasonal
tourists in search of longer-term accommodations.20 This need was especially pronounced in Santa
Monica, given its identity as a bastion of tourism and recreation. Local residents increasingly sought
housing options that offered alternatives to the single-family family house. Developers and investors
responded accordingly by erecting denser multi-family housing that made more efficient use of the land.
Earlier (ca. 1910s) examples of multi-family housing in Santa Monica tended to consist of small-scale
duplexes, triplexes, and flats (also commonly referred to as fourplexes) that could easily pass as single-
family residences and were favored because of their ability to seamlessly blend into the fabric of existing
neighborhoods. Bungalow courts began appearing circa 1908, and thereafter evolved into other
18 Ibid.
19 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update Historic Context Statement, Mar. 2018, 107.
20 SurveyLA, Citywide Historic Context Statement, “Context: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880-1980, Theme: Multi-Family Residential Development, 1895-1970,” Dec. 2018, 7.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17
iterations of courtyard housing that became popular in subsequent decades. Large apartment houses
and other, more quintessentially urban types of multi-family housing also became increasingly common.
While multi-family housing was starting to come of age in the 1910s, it was still something of an
anomaly within the broader context of residential development in Santa Monica, whose neighborhoods
continued to be dominated by single-family houses at this time. The comparatively small number of
multi-family dwellings that were built during this decades were largely concentrated in neighborhoods
on and near the beach, which by virtue of their location catered to tourists and other itinerant types.
1665-1671 Appian Way fits neatly into this context. Constructed in 1914, just as multi-family housing
was starting to come of age, the property is reflective of the location, type, scale, and general
configuration of the city’s early multi-family housing stock. While most other examples of early multi-
family housing from this early period have either been demolished or substantially altered – an
observation corroborated by the scant number of comparable resources identified in the most recent
(2018) HRI – the subject property remains in situ and reasonably intact.
It was not until the 1920s that multi-family housing became a much more ubiquitous element of Santa
Monica’s residential landscape. During this decade, the city witnessed an extraordinary amount of
growth, which spurred a building boom and in turn encouraged developers to invest in the construction
of a more varied stock of housing. The city witnessed an influx of retirees and widows at this time, many
of whom sought alternatives to the single-family house.21 Investors, too, embraced larger and denser
multi-family buildings, which were more profitable and made better use of the land that they occupied.
In contrast to earlier decades – during which time multi-family housing was limited – Santa Monica
witnessed a proliferation of multi-family residential construction beginning in the 1920s. The sheer
number of multi-family dwellings dating to this period rendered it something of a “golden age” with
respect to multi-family development. Multi-family dwellings from this period ran the gamut in terms of
their size, scale, and type. In addition to flats, duplexes, and fourplexes, the city also witnessed the
widespread construction of bungalow courts and other types of courtyard housing, as well as some
larger-scale apartment houses. Iterations of courtyard housing became especially popular and were
seen as appropriately suited to Santa Monica’s beachside setting and exceptionally temperate climate.
Multi-family development continued in earnest in subsequent decades. In the 1930s, the demand for
affordable alternatives to single-family living remained high, due in large part to rapidly rising
enrollment at nearby UCLA. In the years leading up to World War II, hordes of defense workers came to
Santa Monica to work at Douglas Aircraft and other wartime industrial employers, exacerbating the
need for dense and affordable housing.22 The need for multi-family housing only intensified in the
period after World War II, which was marked by unprecedented population growth and presented
challenges for a city that had a relatively small footprint and less and less open land on which to build.23
21 Ibid, 195; “Shortage of Homes Reported,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 1931.
22 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update Historic Context Statement, Mar. 2018, 108.
23 Ibid, 108-113.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18
5. Evaluation of Significance
5.1. Previous Surveys and Evaluations
1665-1671 Appian Way is included in the current (2018) iteration of the City of Santa Monica’s Historic
Resources Inventory (HRI). The HRI identifies the property as potentially eligible for individual
designation under the “Residential Development 1875-1977, Multi-Family Residential Development
1899-1977” context/theme combination. The corresponding statement of significance reads as follows:
1665-1667 Appian Way appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is
significant for conveying patterns of multi-family residential development that shaped the
Ocean Park neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.
Constructed in 1914, it is one of relatively few extant multi-family residential buildings from this
formative period of neighborhood growth.24
The property was assigned the California Historical Resource Status Code of 5S3: “appears to be
individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”
5.2. Local Registration Programs
The City of Santa Monica administers two programs for the local designation of historic resources, each
of which has its own eligibility criteria: Landmarks/Historic Districts and Structures of Merit.
Criteria related to the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts are listed in Chapter 9.56.100
(Landmark or Historic District Designation Criteria) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Landmarks “are
considered to have the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance” and must
satisfy at least one of six criteria (listed in the following section) to be eligible for listing.25 Historic
Districts are generally evaluated against the same eligibility criteria that are used to evaluate Landmarks.
Criteria related to the designation of Structures of Merit are listed in Chapter 9.56.080 (Structure of
Merit Criteria) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Structures of Merit are “historic resources with a
more limited degree of individual significance” than Landmarks, and must satisfy at least one of four
criteria (listed in the following section) to be eligible for listing.26
5.3. Evaluation of Local Significance
ARG evaluated 1665-1671 Appian way against each of the City of Santa Monica’s eligibility criteria for
Landmark and Structure of Merit designation. In summary, ARG arrives at the following conclusions:
24 City of Santa Monica Community Development Department, “Historic Resources Inventory,” accessed Aug. 2021.
25 City of Santa Monica, “Historic Preservation in Santa Monica,” accessed Aug. 2021.
26 Ibid.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19
• The property appears to satisfy one of the City’s Landmark criteria (Criterion A.1)
• The property appears to satisfy two of the City’s Structure of Merit Criteria (Criteria A, B.1)
Following is an explanation of how these determinations were made.
Landmark Criteria
9.56.100(A)(1). [The resource] exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The subject property exemplifies elements of Santa Monica’s economic history, specifically those
associated with patterns of early residential development. It was among the smattering of early multi-
family dwellings that were built in newly-subdivided tracts adjacent to the Municipal Pier (which opened
in 1909) and other recreation and leisure-oriented amenities that were located adjacent to the shore.
Modest, purpose-built multi-family housing options like the subject property were introduced to Santa
Monica in the very early twentieth century, loosely defined as the period prior to 1920. These early
examples of purpose-built multi-family housing were a testament to the profound influence that leisure,
recreation, and tourism had on Santa Monica’s built environment at this time. Their relatively compact
footprints and efficient use of space reflect the ways in which developers adapted and responded to a
demand for shorter-term, affordable alternatives to the single-family house in order to better
accommodate the itinerant lifestyles of tourists and others drawn to Santa Monica’s culture and climate.
The subject property – and particularly its oceanfront setting and efficient use of space – is illustrative of
how Santa Monica’s housing stock evolved in response to broad economic trends of the period.
Built in 1914, the subject property has a relatively early construction date when compared against Santa
Monica’s pool of extant multi-family residential buildings. It thus stands out as an early example of
purpose-built multi-family residential development, which began to come of age in the 1910s but did
not proliferate until the 1920s. Examples of multi-family development from the 1920s onward are
manifold in Santa Monica; examples of multi-family housing pre-dating 1920, by contrast, are far fewer.
In addition, the subject property is notable on account of its rarity: specifically, it is one of but only a few
examples of early (pre-1920) purpose-built multi-family residential development in Santa Monica that
remains extant and retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with key patterns of residential
development and economic history. It is certainly not the only remaining example of a pre-1920 multi-
family dwelling – the locally designated Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, 1913) sits across
the street and conveys many of the same characteristics – but the subject property is among an already-
meager population of pre-1920, purpose-built multi-family resources that has diminished even more
over time, as similar properties have either been demolished to make way for new development or have
been altered to the extent to which they no longer retain sufficient integrity for listing. Though it has
experienced some alterations, the subject property retains integrity from its original construction date.
Rarity is corroborated by data culled from the 2018 HRI. Including the subject property, only eleven
examples of pre-1920 multi-family properties were identified in the HRI as eligible for listing, as follows:
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20
• 1423 10th Street (duplex, built 1912)
• 3025 2nd Street (apartment house, built 1912)
• 2906 3rd Street (apartment house, built 1912)
• 3007-3009 3rd Street (bungalow court, built 1908)
• 2434 4th Street (fourplex, built 1915)
• 2524 4th Street (triplex, built 1917)
• *1665-1671 Appian Way (subject property, built 1914)
• 215 Bay Street (triplex, built 1908)
• 319-321 Bicknell Avenue (fourplex, built 1902)
• 143 Hollister Avenue (Maryland Apartments, built 1912)
• 124 Pacific Street (duplex, built 1912)
• 418 Strand Street (apartment house, built 1912)
This figure is very meager when compared against the total number of eligible resources identified in
the HRI (875) and the total number of parcels within the City of Santa Monica (approximately 23,000).
Moreover, Sanborn maps from 1918 indicate that at that time, there were a sizable number of modest,
purpose-built multi-family dwellings in the Seaside Terrace and Vicente Terrace tracts, particularly on
the inland blocks east of Appian Way. Almost all of these early, purpose-built multi-family dwellings
from the 1910s have since been extensively altered or demolished. Many succumbed to redevelopment
that took place in these neighborhoods in the 1990s, which resulted in the demolition of many existing
properties and the construction of expansive, multi-lot developments in their place.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way appears to satisfy Landmark Criterion 1.
9.56.100(A)(2). [The resource] has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
The subject property is a vernacular building that lacks the distinctive characteristics of a particular
architectural style. Its features are more a testament to function than they are to aesthetics. Because of
its vernacular appearance, the building reads as a simple structure that was erected to provide
affordable, functional housing options to Santa Monica’s working and middle-class residents – and was
not intended to be a building of particular architectural or aesthetic merit in the spirit of this criterion.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 2.
9.56.100(A)(3). [The resource] is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state, or national history.
There is insufficient evidence indicating that any of the people associated with the subject property
made significant contributions to history. Original owner John S. Stotler – who also lived in one of the
building’s dwelling units between 1914 and 1931 – appears to have had a successful career, first in the
mining industry and later as a local real estate developer, but does not appear to have made any
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21
significant inroads to history that would render him a historically significant individual in the spirit of this
criterion. None of the subsequent owners or tenants associated with the building appear to be of
historical significance. The scant information that is available about these individuals indicates that they
lived typical lives and were employed in typical vocations.
There is also insufficient evidence to indicate that the property is associated with a significant event in
local, state, or national history. It appears to have functioned as nothing more than a typical multi-family
dwelling between its original (1914) construction and the present day.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 3.
9.56.100(A)(4). [The resource] embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study
of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a
unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type valuable to such a study.
As discussed in the evaluation against Landmark Criterion 2, the subject property is a vernacular
structure that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural style. There is also nothing particularly
noteworthy about its method of construction or craftsmanship, as it is a conventional wood frame
building utilizing methods and materials typical of the era in which it was constructed. Though the
property appears to be a rare example of early (pre-1920s), purpose-built multi-family housing as
discussed in Criterion 1, it does not read as a particularly strong example of any particular multi-family
property type identified in the City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement. It has four units, but
does not present as a fourplex; it also contains a pedestrian passage between its volumes, but lacks the
shared open space that is characteristic of bungalow courts and courtyard housing. It lacks the height
and the density characteristic of apartment houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence
showing that it is a unique or rare example of an architectural or historical type per this criterion.
The building does not appear to be significant on the merits of its architecture. Its significance is derived
from its use and associative qualities, not for reasons relating to its physical design. Therefore, ARG
concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 4.
9.56.100(A)(5). [The resource] is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
Original building permits for the subject property are not available; supplemental research about the
property indicates that it was not designed by an architect, and was built by building contractor F.N.
Jones. No pertinent information could be found about the life, career, or contributions of Jones;
available documentation indicates that he was a locally-based building contractor who erected the
occasional building but was not especially prolific in their craft. Given the lack of information about F.N.
Jones – and the lack of an architect of record – there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the
building is a representative example of the wok or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 5.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22
9.56.100(A)(6). [The resource] has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The subject property does not possess any singular feature or physical characteristic that stands out as
memorable or noteworthy. While it reads as considerably older that most other buildings in the
immediate vicinity, there is nothing particularly notable about its design or appearance apart from its
relative age. It is located on a typical residential lot on a lesser-traveled street, and does not occupy a
particularly prominent location. It may be familiar to those who reside in the neighborhood and pass by
on a regular basis, but to the casual passer-by the building does not stand out as an aesthetically
distinctive resource in the spirit of this criterion. It is compatible with, and blends into its surroundings.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 6.
Structure of Merit Criteria
9.56.080(A). The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). As noted, in the
most recent (2018) iteration of the HRI, it was flagged as potentially eligible for individual listing and was
assigned the California Historical Resources Status Code of 5S3: “appears to be individually eligible for
local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way appears to satisfy Structure of Merit
Criterion A.
9.56.080(B)(1). The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age, and is a unique or rare example of an
architectural design, detail, or historical type.
Constructed in 1914, the subject property far exceeds 50 years of age. As noted in the evaluation against
Landmark Criterion 1, it is a rare, extant example of pre-1920s purpose-built multi-family residential
development, which can be regarded as a historical type. Though the building is not particularly notable
on its own merits, it is unique in that it is one of very few remaining examples of its respective type.
For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way appears to satisfy Structure of Merit
Criterion B.1.
9.56.080(B)(2). The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age, and is representative of a style in the City
that is no longer prevalent.
The building is more than 50 years of age. However, as noted in the evaluation against Landmark Criteria
2 and 4, it is a vernacular building that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural style. For these
reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Structure of Merit Criterion B.2.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23
9.56.080(B)(3). The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age, and contributes to a potential Historic
District.
The building is a minimum of 50 years of age, but does not appear to contribute to a potential historic
district. There is no grouping of aesthetically or thematically related properties in the vicinity. Thus, ARG
concludes that 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Structure of Merit Criterion B.3.
5.3. Evaluation of Integrity
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance, and is defined by the National Park Service
(NPS) as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s prehistoric or historic period.”27 NPS identifies seven
aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Following is an assessment of 1665-1671 Appian Way against each aspect of integrity.
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred.
The subject building has not been moved from its original location. It retains integrity of location.
Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property.
The subject building generally retains its original plan, configuration, and design intent, but has
experienced some alterations that resulted in modest, yet discernible changes to its appearance when
experienced from the street. The most notable alterations include the infill of an original porch and the
addition of new building volumes and decking on the side (northwest) façade. These modifications are
confined to a secondary façade, but are nonetheless visible from the street and add a degree of
complexity to a building footprint that was historically simple and straightforward. Other alterations
include the replacement of all original doors and some original windows – though their original openings
and surrounds remain intact – and the removal of one original decorative ledge on the primary
(southwest) façade, though the imprint of the ledge remains visible. Weighed together, these alterations
have resulted in some modest changes to the building’s appearance, but have not meaningfully changed
27 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration
Form (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), 4.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 24
its essential form, plan, space, and structure. Overall, the building’s original design intent remains
legible. The building retains integrity of design, though this aspect of integrity has been compromised.
Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property constituting topographical features, vegetation,
manmade features, and relationships between buildings and open space.
Sanborn maps and historic aerial images indicate that the immediate setting of the subject property has
changed somewhat since its original construction in 1914. When it was originally constructed, the
building was located in a new and somewhat sparsely developed subdivision that consisted of a handful
of adjacent single- and multi-family residential uses and a preponderance of vacant lots. Since then, the
area has been built out with a variety of uses including single-family houses, various multi-family
residential uses, and hotels. Many of the more contemporary uses in the area are denser and larger in
scale that the development that originally graced these blocks. However, essential land use and
circulation patterns remain sufficiently intact, and many of the parcels in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property – notably, the Purser Apartments on the opposite side of Appian Way, and the
residential properties to the east along Arcadia Terrace – have witnessed minimal change over time. The
subject building thus retains integrity of design, though this aspect of integrity has been compromised.
Materials
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.
As noted, some original materials – including all original doors and some windows, and an original ledge
on the primary/southwest façade – have been removed and, in some instances, replaced. In addition,
some new materials like wood decking, metal security bars, and a metal stair rail have been added
where they did not originally exist. However, overall the materiality of the building remains largely intact
from its original (1914) date of construction. Specifically, the building retains its original wood siding, its
original cornice, some of its original windows and most of its original surrounds, and three of the four
original ledges on its primary façade. When these factors are weighed together, the building is missing
some of its original materials, but retains most of materials associated with its original construction. The
property therefore retains integrity of materials, though this aspect of integrity has been compromised.
Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people or artisan during any
given period in history or pre-history.
As a modest building with a simple aesthetic and no discernible architectural style, the subject building
does not have much in the way of distinguishing features connoting its workmanship when it was
originally constructed. Rather, workmanship was expressed through the incorporation of subtle
architectural details including the wood siding of different widths, the notched beams surmounting the
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 25
central pedestrian court, and bracketed wood ledges on the primary/southwest façade., and wood
surrounds and headers at doors and windows. With the exception of one of four bracketed ledges, these
architectural details all remain intact, and are a testament to the workmanship that went into the
construction of the building upon its completion in 1914. The building retains integrity of workmanship.
Feeling
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time.
The removal of some original architectural features and some minor additions notwithstanding, the
subject building continues to sufficiently read as a typical, modest multi-family residence from the early
twentieth century. Its simple massing; conventional forms, proportions, and materials; and dearth of
architectural ornament are all typical of multi-family housing from this period, which sought to provide
an efficient and economical alternative to the single-family house. The building retains the distinctive
look and feel of a multi-family dwelling from this era. Thus, the building retains integrity of feeling.
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
As noted, while altered, the property retains a sufficient sense of time and place to render it a product
of multi-family residential development patterns in Santa Monica in the early twentieth century. The
building retains a very clear and legible link with the broad patterns of events that influenced its design
and construction. Therefore, the building retains integrity of association.
Summary of Integrity
To be eligible for listing, a resource must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as a historic resource and convey the reason(s) for its significance.
The subject building has been altered, but as noted in the above-listed integrity analysis these
alterations have not changed its essential form, plan, design, and architectural character as to where it is
no longer eligible for listing. The building retains integrity of location, feeing, and association. It also
retains integrity of design, setting, materials, and workmanship, though these aspects of integrity have
been compromised. When weighed together, the building retains sufficient integrity for local listing.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 26
6. Conclusion
Based on review of documentary evidence, site analysis, identification of historic contexts, and
evaluation against local eligibility criteria, ARG concludes that the property at 1665-1671 Appian Way
appears to satisfy Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 1 for exemplifying early patterns of multi-family
residential development. ARG further concludes that the property appears to satisfy Structure of Merit
Criteria A and B.1 as a rare remaining example of an early purpose-built multi-family housing.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 27
7. Bibliogaphy
Books, Periodicals, Reports, and Other Published Materials
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic
Resources Inventory Update Survey Report. Jul. 23, 2018.
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica, Historic Resources
Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement. Mar. 2018.
Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: A Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice,
Marina del Rey, Ocean Park, Pacific Palisades, Topanga. Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2001.
City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services
Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002).
Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group. “City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement.” Prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and
Community Development Department, City Planning Division, March 2018.
ICF Jones & Stokes. “Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report.”
Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development
Department, 2010.
Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities. Santa Monica: L.A. Ingersoll,
1908.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1984.
McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946.
“More Northern California Operators Come South.” Oil Trade Journal. Jan. 1923.
Scott, Paula. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach. Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1986.
Web Sites and Other Sources
Ancestry.com (multiple databases). Online. Accessed Mar. 2021, https://www.ancestry.com/.
City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. Building and alteration
permits for 1665-1671 Appian Way. Accessed Aug. 2021.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica | Historic Assessment Report September 2, 2021
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 28
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Online. Accessed Aug. 2021,
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/surveyrecord/tractMain.cfm.
Los Angeles Times, various dates. Accessed online via the Los Angeles Public Library.
NETRonline. Historic Aerial Images, multiple dates. Accessed online at http://www.historicaerials.com.
Sanborn Map Company. Fire Insurance Maps, Santa Monica, California, 1902, 1909, 1918, and 1950.
Accessed online via the Los Angeles Public Library.
Santa Monica Conservancy. “History of Santa Monica.” Online. Accessed Aug. 2021,
http://www.smconservancy.org/historic-places/history-of-santa-monica/.
Santa Monica Public Library. Historical Maps of Santa Monica. Online. Accessed Aug. 2021,
http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/maps.
Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Newspaper Index. Online. Accessed Aug. 2021,
http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/smfile.
Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Image Archive. Online. Accessed Aug. 2021,
http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/smarchive.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Assessment_090221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
Memorandum
To Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP
Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Stephanie.Reich@santamonica.gov
Project: 1665-1671 Appian Way, Historic Assessment
ARG Project No.: 12110.15
Date: Nov. 2, 2021
Via: E-mail
Pursuant to the City of Santa Monica’s request, Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has
conducted additional research and analysis related to the property at 1665-1671 Appian Way,
Santa Monica. This memorandum includes a summary of our research findings.
Issue Background
1665-1671 Appian Way contains a one-story, four-unit multi-family residential building that was
constructed in 1914. Designed in a vernacular idiom, the building was erected by building
contractor F.N. Jones for original owner John S. Stotler. The property has remained in continuous
use as multi-family housing. In the most recent (2018) update of the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI), the property was flagged as potentially eligible for individual listing as a local
Landmark and was assigned the corresponding California Historical Resources Status Code of 5S3
(“appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation”).
In March 2021, an application nominating the property as a Landmark was submitted to the City.
The nomination asserts that the property is significant under Criterion 1, for exemplifying
elements of the City’s history, and Criterion 4 as “a rare example of an architectural historical type
valuable for study: the double bungalow.”1 In September 2021, ARG, on behalf of the City,
prepared a Historic Assessment for the property and evaluated its eligibility against local
designation criteria. ARG concluded that the property appears to meet one of the City’s Landmark
criteria (Criterion 1), for exemplifying elements of Santa Monica’s economic history as an early
and rare remaining example of purpose-built multi-family housing in Santa Monica. ARG also
concluded that the property appears to meet two of the City’s Structure of Merit criteria (A, B.1).
1 Landmark Nomination for 1665-1671 Appian Way, prepared by Shawn Hugus, Mar. 18, 2021, 2.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
2
While the nomination asserts that the property is also eligible under Landmark Criterion 4, ARG
concluded that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the property meets this criterion.
The nomination was heard before the Landmarks Commission at its meeting on September 13,
2021. At the meeting, additional information about the property and its original owner, John
Stotler, was submitted by a member of the public. The Commission voted to continue the item to
allow for additional time for Staff to analyze the new information presented. Specifically, the
Commission requested additional research and analysis related to the following topics:
• Whether the subject property should also be designated under Criterion 1 because of its
association with race and ethnicity as the residence of John Stotler, who held (and acted
on) racist views and discriminatory attitudes toward non-whites;
• Whether the “double bungalow” property type described in the nomination is a
recognized multi-family property type significant to the history of Santa Monica; and
• Additional information about the rarity of the subject property, including the number of
extant comparable properties in the vicinity.
ARG has conducted additional research and analysis related to the above-listed topics, each of
which is addressed in the following sections.
Research Topic No. 1: John Stotler, Original Owner
The Historic Assessment Report that ARG prepared for the subject property (September 2021)
includes basic biographical information about original owner John S. Stotler. As described in the
report, information about the life of Stotler is scant. It is known that he was born in 1862 in
Pennsylvania; came to California in 1885; was among a handful of people who settled in the small
mining town of Ballarat, California in 1896; and later moved to Southern California where he
worked as a small-scale real estate developer and investor. Stotler commissioned the construction
of the subject property in 1914, which he used as both his personal residence and as an income-
producing property. Stotler resided in the building’s northernmost unit up until his death in 1931.
Based on this information, ARG concluded that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that
Stotler made contributions in a manner that would render him a historically significant individual.
Additional information about Stotler was presented to the Landmarks Commission during the
public hearing. The information that was presented pertained to the racist views and
discriminatory attitudes held by Stotler. It states that at the same time that Stotler purchased the
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
3
subject property and commissioned construction of the subject building, he acquired property at
the west end of Pico Boulevard and offered it to the City of Santa Monica as the site of a municipal
auditorium, a proposition that failed to come to fruition. It further contends that when efforts to
construct the auditorium failed, the Pico Boulevard property was sold to a group who sought to
build a bathhouse for the Black population, an effort that failed because a group of white
residents – which included Stotler – forced the group out. Due to this association, it was suggested
that the property also be considered for designation under Criterion 1 for its ties to racial history.
Supplemental research conducted by ARG supports the assertion that Stotler did have racist
attitudes, and that he indeed played a heavy hand in preventing African Americans from building a
bathhouse at the west end of Pico Boulevard, which was located several blocks from the subject
property. The location of the proposed bathhouse occupied land that Stotler once owned and was
adjacent to what was pejoratively called “The Inkwell,” a stretch of beachfront that was located
between Pico Boulevard and Bicknell Street and was a hub of leisure for African Americans during
the segregated Jim Crow era.2 Stotler was among a group of Santa Monica residents who, in 1922,
established the Santa Monica Bay Protective League, an organization whose stated mission was to
eliminate “all objectionable features or anything that now is or will prove a menace to the Bay
District” – a thinly veiled reference to non-whites.3 He served on its Board of Directors and was
elected as its Secretary-Treasurer. That the organization was established in the spirit of racism was
reflected in its official slogan – “A Membership of One Thousand Caucasians.”4 The Protective
League lobbied against construction of the bathhouse on Pico Boulevard, and also lobbied to close
Caldwell’s Dance Hall at 1816 3rd Street, another venue that served the local Black community.5
At question is whether the association between racial history and the subject property is strong
enough to merit designation for this reason. National Register Bulletin 15A: How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation is instructive in evaluating which properties are significant
for their association with historic events. It underscores the assertion that there should be a clear
and meaningful nexus between a historic event and a property by stating that “mere association
with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A (the
equivalent of local Criterion 1): the property’s specific association must be considered important
as well.”6 Implicit in this statement is an understanding that if the association between an event
2 Alison Rose Jefferson, “African American Leisure Space in Santa Monica: The Beach Sometimes Known as ‘The
Inkwell,’” Southern California Quarterly 91.2 (Summer 2009), 155-189.
3 “Protective League Made Permanent Organization,” Santa Monica Evening Outlook, Jun. 8, 1922.
4 Ibid.
5 “League Asks Council to Close Hall,” Santa Monica Evening Outlook, Jul. 14, 1922.
6 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.:
National Park Service, 1990, rev. 1997), 12.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
4
and a property is tenuous and not particularly well-defined, then the property is typically not
eligible under this criterion.
When this guidance is applied to the subject property, there does not appear to be a particularly
strong nexus between the property and the racist attitudes held by Stotler. While Stotler
constructed and resided in the subject building, and the building was located near the proposed
bathhouse that the Protective League lobbied against and ultimately defeated, the subject
property does not appear to have played a significant role in this facet of local history aside from
being the place where Stotler lived at the time. The additional information provided states that
petitions for the Protective League were available for signing at his house (the subject property) –
which was likely true, given Stotler’s prominent role in the organization – but this, in and of itself,
does not constitute a significant event that would warrant designation under Criterion 1.
Santa Monica, like all jurisdictions, has to reckon with unfortunate and uncomfortable aspects of
its racial past, and while Stotler certainly played a role in perpetuating racist attitudes and
discriminatory behavior, there is insufficient evidence specifically linking this history to the subject
property. Resources like the Bay Street Beach Historic District (also pejoratively known as the
“Inkwell”) – which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2019 – has a much more
direct and discernible association with these facets of history. Thus, ARG does not believe there is
sufficient basis for adding racial history to the argument in favor of Landmark Criterion 1.
Research Topic No. 2: Property Type – The “Double Bungalow”
The nomination asserts that the subject property is eligible under Landmark Criterion 4 “as a rare
example of an architectural historical type valuable for study: the double bungalow.” ARG’s
Historic Assessment Report evaluated the merits of this argument, but found there to be
insufficient evidence demonstrating that the property embodies distinguishing characteristics of a
historical type per Criterion 4. During the public hearing on September 13, 2021, the Landmarks
Commission requested additional information about the “double bungalow” property type to
determine if the property merits consideration under Criterion 4, as presented by the applicant.
Common types of multi-family housing that are represented in Santa Monica are defined and
described in the Citywide Historic Context Statement that was prepared as part of the 2018 HRI
Update. That document distinguishes between eight significant types of multi-family housing:7
7 “City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement,” prepared by Historic
Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group, Mar. 2018, 114-121.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
5
• Apartment Houses (contain two to four units, oriented to maximize lot coverage)
• Duplexes/Fourplexes (contain two to four units, typically designed to emulate single-
family houses and blend into single-family residential neighborhoods)
• Bungalow Courts (composed of multiple detached or semi-detached buildings oriented
around a central common area)
• One-Story Courts (a later iteration of the bungalow court, composed of multiple attached
units in a linear configuration facing a minimal side courtyard)
• Courtyard Apartments (two-story buildings, typically oriented around a central landscaped
courtyard or common outdoor area)
• Garden Apartments (composed of two or more buildings oriented around one or more
courtyards or set within a larger landscape)
• Dingbats (multiple-story residential buildings that occupy the full depth of the lot and
have open-sided carports that are recessed into the street frontage)
• Residential Towers (buildings that are vertically oriented and are six or more stories tall)
The term “double bungalow” is not identified as a multi-family housing type in the Historic
Context Statement, indicating that it was not particularly common or significant in Santa Monica.
ARG consulted various other source materials to determine whether the “double bungalow” is
generally accepted as a multi-family housing type in either historic or current parlance. Most
sources related to the history and development of multi-family housing identify various types of
courtyard housing – bungalow courts, courtyard apartments, and garden apartments – but do not
make reference to the double bungalow, suggesting that this term is not widely used in the
lexicon of architectural history.
A reference to the term “double bungalow” can be found in the work of Todd Gish, whose
dissertation (University of Southern California, 2007) explores the development of multi-family
housing in early twentieth century Southern California:
The “double bungalow” was a single-story structure divided down the middle, forming
two units side-by-side. These buildings were often perfectly symmetrical in plan and front
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
6
elevation. The “double house” was a two-story version of this, essentially a pair of
adjoining row houses, with living rooms and kitchens below and bedrooms above…8
Given this context, the terms “double bungalow” and “double house” appear to be synonyms for
duplexes and fourplexes, respectively, and do not appear to be commonly used.
The subject property contains four units – not two – and therefore does not meet the definition of
a duplex (or “double bungalow”). It possesses some characteristics of a fourplex (or “double
house”) in that it has four units and is symmetrical in plan and elevation. However, the typical
fourplex was deliberately designed to emulate the overall form, massing, and appearance of
single-family houses among which they were often sited. The subject property does not appear to
make any such overtures. Instead of being distributed between multiple stories, the massing of
the subject property is spread across its site. Its form and massing clearly read as a multi-family
building and make no apparent attempt at emulating the appearance of a single-family dwelling.
Rather, the subject property appears to loosely exhibit characteristics of several multi-family
housing types – but does not exhibit the characteristics of any one type that would merit
consideration under Landmark Criterion 4. As noted, it has four units, but does not present as a
fourplex; it also contains a pedestrian passage between its volumes, but lacks the shared open
space that is characteristic of bungalow courts and courtyard housing. It lacks the height and the
density characteristic of apartment houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence
demonstrating that the property is significant on account of its physical design as per Criterion 4.
Research Topic No. 3: Rarity of Age and Type
ARG’s Historic Assessment Report concludes that the subject property appears to be eligible
under Landmark Criterion 1 as an early and rare remaining example of purpose-built multi-family
housing in Santa Monica. During the public hearing on September 13, 2021, the Landmarks
Commission requested additional information about the relative rarity of the subject property.
As noted in ARG’s Historic Assessment Report, rarity of age and type was determined by
evaluating survey data from the 2018 HRI. Not including the subject property, eleven examples of
pre-1920 multi-family properties were identified in the HRI as eligible for listing citywide, which
are comparable to the subject property with respect to age (pre-1920) and use (purpose-built
multi-family dwellings). Information about each of these comparable properties is included below:
8 Todd Douglas Gish, “Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900-1936” (Ph.D., diss.,
University of Southern California, 2007), 3.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
7
Address: 1423 10th Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Duplex
Architectural Style: Residential Vernacular
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 3025 2nd Street (also 233 Marine St)
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2906 3rd Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Mission Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
8
Address: 3007-3009 3rd Street
Year Built: 1908
Property Type: Bungalow Court
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2434 4th Street
Year Built: 1915
Property Type: Fourplex
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 2524 4th Street
Year Built: 1917
Property Type: Triplex
Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
9
Address: 215 Bay Street
Year Built: 1908
Property Type: Triplex
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 319-321 Bicknell Avenue
Year Built: 1902
Property Type: Fourplex
Architectural Style: Residential Vernacular
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 143 Hollister Avenue
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House (Maryland Apts.)
Architectural Style: Italian Renaissance Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
10
Address: 124 Pacific Street
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Duplex
Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Address: 418 Strand Street (also 2302 5th Street)
Year Built: 1912
Property Type: Apartment House
Architectural Style: Craftsman
Status Code (2018): 5S3
Including the subject property, twelve examples of purpose-built multi-family residential
properties were identified as potentially eligible for listing in the 2018 HRI. This accounts for 1.4%
of the total number of eligible resources (875) identified in the 2018 HRI. (Many other examples of
multi-family residential properties were identified in HRI, but were built in or after 1920, when
multi-family development became a more ubiquitous part of Santa Monica’s built environment).
These comparable examples of eligible multi-family residential resources exhibit some variety with
respect to type, size, scale, and style. However, like the subject property they are all relatively
early (defined as pre-1920) examples of purpose-built multi-family housing in Santa Monica.
Designated examples of pre-1920 multi-family residential resources include the Bay Street
Craftsman Cluster (comprising four buildings at 137-147 Bay Street, built circa 1900), and the
Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, built 1913).
To further ascertain the question of rarity, ARG evaluated Sanborn fire insurance maps of Santa
Monica from 1918, focusing specifically on the area in the vicinity of the subject property –
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
11
generally defined as the area bounded by Colorado Avenue (north), Ocean Park Boulevard (south
– then known as Dwight Avenue), Fourth Street (east), and Ocean Front Walk (west). Review of
these maps indicate that in this area, there were roughly six dozen examples of properties
containing different multi-family property types including apartment houses, duplexes, fourplexes,
and bungalow courts in 1918, one of which was the subject property. Many more were
presumably located in other parts of the City, which were not evaluated at length for this analysis.
The subject property is certainly not the only example of an early, purpose-built multi-family
resource in Santa Monica; as noted above, there are eleven examples of comparable resources in
the City, and the Purser Apartments – built in 1913 as an apartment house – is located across the
street from the subject property, and exhibits some of the same associative characteristics as
those conveyed by the subject property. However, when compared against the number of similar
properties that once existed within Santa Monica, and against the total pool of eligible resources
citywide, the subject property appears to be a relatively rare example of its age and type.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Per the above research and analysis, ARG arrives at the following conclusions:
• While original owner John Stotler played a heavy hand in perpetuating racism, there is
insufficient evidence linking events in racial history to the subject property. It is ARG’s
opinion that the subject property is not eligible under Criterion 1 for this reason.
• The “double bungalow” does not appear to be a term that is widely used in academic
studies of multi-family housing. Rather, it appears to be a seldom-used synonym for the
duplex. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a duplex or
any other type of multi-family dwelling. Rather, it loosely embodies some characteristics
of various multi-family types. It is ARG’s opinion that the subject property does not
embody distinctive characteristics of a specific type – double bungalow or other - that
would render it eligible under Criterion 4.
• The subject property is one of twelve known examples of locally eligible, pre-1920
purpose-built multi-family residential resources in Santa Monica. There are also two
designated multi-family properties from 1920 in the City. Research suggests that this was
once a relatively ubiquitous property type that has become less common over time.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: ARG_1665 Appian Way Supplemental Memo 110221 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way
1
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DESIGNATION OF A MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 21ENT-0067 LOCATED AT 1665 APPIAN WAY AS A CITY LANDMARK SECTION I. The property owner filed a demolition permit application with the City of
Santa Monica (City) on February 15, 2021. On March 18, 2021, Shawn Hugus submitted Designation application 21ENT-0067 to nominate the property at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on November 08, 2021, hereby finds that the subject residence located at 1665
Appian Way meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100 and designates the subject residence as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 1665 Appian Way as a Landmark Parcel, based on the following findings:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
The subject property exemplifies elements of Santa Monica’s economic history, specifically those associated with patterns of early residential development. It was among the smattering of early multi-family dwellings that were built in newly-subdivided tracts
adjacent to the Municipal Pier (which opened in 1909) and other recreation and leisure-oriented amenities that were located adjacent to the shore. Modest, purpose-built multi-family housing options like the subject property were introduced to Santa Monica in the very early twentieth century, loosely defined as the period prior to 1920. These early examples of purpose-built multi-family housing were a testament to the profound influence
that leisure, recreation, and tourism had on Santa Monica’s built environment at this time. Their relatively compact footprints and efficient use of space reflect the ways in which developers adapted and responded to a demand for shorter-term, affordable alternatives to the single-family house in order to better accommodate the itinerant lifestyles of tourists and others drawn to Santa Monica’s culture and climate. The subject property – and
particularly its oceanfront setting and efficient use of space – is illustrative of how Santa Monica’s housing stock evolved in response to broad economic trends of the period. Built in 1914, the subject property has a relatively early construction date when compared against Santa Monica’s pool of extant multi-family residential buildings. It thus stands out
as an early example of purpose-built multi-family residential development, which began to come of age in the 1910s but did not proliferate until the 1920s. Examples of multi-family development from the 1920s onward are manifold in Santa Monica; examples of multi-family housing pre-dating 1920, by contrast, are far fewer.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF77D7B2-C3C8-4E05-A14C-F828AE03C99C
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian
2
In addition, the subject property is notable on account of its rarity: specifically, it is one of
but only a few examples of early (pre-1920) purpose-built multi-family residential development in Santa Monica that remains extant and retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with key patterns of residential development and economic history. It is certainly not the only remaining example of a pre-1920 multi-family dwelling – the locally
designated Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, 1913) sits across the street and
conveys many of the same characteristics – but the subject property is among an already-meager population of pre-1920, purpose-built multi-family resources that has diminished even more over time, as similar properties have either been demolished to make way for new development or have been altered to the extent to which they no longer retain
sufficient integrity for listing. Though it has experienced some alterations, the subject
property retains integrity from its original construction date. Rarity is corroborated by data culled from the 2018 HRI. Including the subject property, only eleven examples of pre-1920 multi-family properties were identified in the HRI as
eligible for listing. This figure is very meager when compared against the total number of
eligible resources identified in the HRI (875) and the total number of parcels within the City of Santa Monica (approximately 23,000). Moreover, Sanborn maps from 1918 indicate that at that time, there were a sizable
number of modest, purpose-built multi-family dwellings in the Seaside Terrace and
Vicente Terrace tracts, particularly on the inland blocks east of Appian Way. Almost all of these early, purpose-built multi-family dwellings from the 1910s have since been extensively altered or demolished. Many succumbed to redevelopment that took place in these neighborhoods in the 1990s, which resulted in the demolition of many existing
properties and the construction of expansive, multi-lot developments in their place.
Therefore, 1665-1671 Appian Way appears to satisfy Landmark Criterion 1.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property is a vernacular building that lacks the distinctive characteristics of a particular architectural style. Its features are more a testament to function than they are
to aesthetics. Because of its vernacular appearance, the building reads as a simple structure that was erected to provide affordable, functional housing options to Santa Monica’s working and middle-class residents – and was not intended to be a building of particular architectural or aesthetic merit in the spirit of this criterion.
Therefore, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 2. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
There is insufficient evidence indicating that any of the people associated with the subject property made significant contributions to history. Original owner John S. Stotler – who also lived in one of the building’s dwelling units between 1914 and 1931 – appears to have had a successful career, first in the mining industry and later as a local real estate
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF77D7B2-C3C8-4E05-A14C-F828AE03C99C
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian
3
developer, but does not appear to have made any significant inroads to history that would
render him a historically significant individual in the spirit of this criterion. None of the subsequent owners or tenants associated with the building appear to be of historical significance. The scant information that is available about these individuals indicates that they lived typical lives and were employed in typical vocations.
There is also insufficient evidence to indicate that the property is associated with a significant event in local, state, or national history. It appears to have functioned as nothing more than a typical multi-family dwelling between its original (1914) construction and the present day.
Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 3.
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a
period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. As discussed in the evaluation against Landmark Criterion 2, the subject property is a vernacular structure that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural style. There is also nothing particularly noteworthy about its method of construction or craftsmanship, as it is a conventional wood frame building utilizing methods and materials typical of the era in which it was constructed. Though the property appears to be a rare example of early (pre-1920s), purpose-built multi-family
housing as discussed in Criterion 1, it does not read as a particularly strong example of any particular multi-family property type identified in the City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement. It has four units, but does not present as a fourplex; it also contains a pedestrian
passage between its volumes, but lacks the shared open space that is characteristic of bungalow courts and courtyard housing. It lacks the height and the density characteristic of apartment houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence showing that it is a unique or rare
example of an architectural or historical type per this criterion. The building does not appear to be significant on the merits of its architecture. Its significance is derived
from its use and associative qualities, not for reasons relating to its physical design.
Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 4.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect.
Original building permits for the subject property are not available; supplemental research about the property indicates that it was not designed by an architect, and was built by building contractor F.N. Jones. No pertinent information could be found about the life, career, or contributions of Jones; available documentation indicates that he was a locally-based building contractor who erected the occasional building but was not especially prolific in their craft. Given the lack of information about F.N. Jones – and the lack of an architect of record – there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the building is a representative example of the wok or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 5.
(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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF77D7B2-C3C8-4E05-A14C-F828AE03C99C
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian
4
The subject property does not possess any singular feature or physical characteristic that stands out
as memorable or noteworthy. While it reads as considerably older that most other buildings in the immediate vicinity, there is nothing particularly notable about its design or appearance apart from its relative age. It is located on a typical residential lot on a lesser-traveled street, and does not occupy a particularly prominent location. It may be familiar to those who reside in the neighborhood and pass by on a regular basis, but to the casual passer-by the building does not stand out as an aesthetically distinctive resource in the spirit of this criterion. It is compatible with, and blends into its surroundings.
Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy Criterion 6.
SECTION II. The character-defining features of the property include the following:
• General configuration (excluding altered porch)
• Horizontal massing
• Symmetrical elevations
• Exterior wood siding
• Original Cornice
• Components of the entry to Arcadia Terrace situated on the subject property
NOTE: the addition of new building volumes and decking on the side (northwest) façade
exterior metal security bars and exterior stair are not included in the designation SECTION III. The property commonly known as 1665-1671 is designated as a Landmark
Parcel in order to preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the Landmark building.
SECTION IV. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on November 08, 2021 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Summers, Garvin, Chair Pro Tem Breisch, Chair Genser ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
NAYES: Brand, Green, Sloan
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
decision. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF77D7B2-C3C8-4E05-A14C-F828AE03C99C
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian
5
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
Respectfully Submitted
November 08, 2021
Roger Genser, Chairperson
Attest:
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP
Landmarks Commission Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF77D7B2-C3C8-4E05-A14C-F828AE03C99C
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: 21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) STOA LM Designation (1) (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian
1
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
VIA TELECONFERENCE
PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 361
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2021
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Genser called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM
ROLL CALL
Present:
Richard Brand
Kenneth Breisch, Chair Pro Tempore
Gloria Garvin
Roger Genser, Chair
Amy Green
Dolores Sloan
Jodi Summers
Also Present:
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III
1. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
A. Report from Staff:
7:05 PM
Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner, provided the
report. She noted the appeal items to City Council are currently scheduled in
2022 and will keep the Commission updated. She stated that Council
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
2
approved the Mills Act Contracts on October 26 and she also noted
Administrative approvals.
Staff is working with the property owner to process an administrative
application for a fence/gate for the Santa Monica Bay Women’s Club to
provide safety and security for the tenants
Ms. Reich reported on 125 and 135 San Vicente Boulevard, two contributing
properties on the north side of the street, at the western end of the district.
Public safety has been working with the property owner for some time to
secure the property. It has come to staff’s attention that security issues may
have escalated and there may have been some vandalism on the
properties. Recently, the landscaping has been cut back to prevent people
from hiding on the property. Staff is working with the property owner to
ensure the contributing structures remains protected and that the property
is maintained as much as possible.
B. Landmarks Commissioner Announcements
7:11 PM
Commissioner Green and Chair Genser provided a report from the Pier
Board meeting:
• There are an increasing number of people visiting the pier
• There is an increased optimism among the Pier Board, pier is rapidly
returning
• Jim Harris has been appointed as Interim Director
• Chair Genser noted that the Pier Sign will have to be removed and
relocated for protection during the rebuilding of the Pier Bridge. He stated
that the Commission cannot opine on this matter, though the Commission
could comment under the Environmental Review.
• Pier Security has been an issue and fencing will be provided, exempt from
review
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a
member for discussion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
3
A. Approval of Minutes:
• September 13, 2021
7:17 PM
Commissioners provided a minor correction. Commissioner Green made a
motion to approve as amended. Commissioner Sloan seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Garvin, Genser, Green, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
B. Approval of Statement of Official Action:
• Certificate of Appropriateness application 21ENT-0136 for the property
located at 1415 Ocean Avenue, (Georgian Hotel) consideration of a sign
adjustment to replace identity signage for “The Georgian” a designated
City Landmark.
7:20 PM
Chair Genser made a motion to approve. Commissioner Green seconded the
motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Garvin, Genser, Green, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
3. STUDY SESSION
• None.
4. CONTINUED ITEMS (PUBLIC HEARING)
A. Landmark Designation Application 21ENT-0067 for the property located at
1665 Appian Way to determine whether the multi-family residential building
in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so
designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and
described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark.
The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether
the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
4
the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark
designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
Item continued from September 13, 2021.
7:22 PM
Ms. Reich presented the staff report. She identified additional information
requested by the Commission and provided by the City’s Consultant
Architectural Resources Group (ARG). She presented a recommendation of
denial of the designation with the supporting analysis.
Laura Voisin George, ASM, presented for the applicant team and identified
that the property meets criteria 1 and 4 based on the unique architectural
details and type.
Amanda Duane, GPA Consulting, presented for the property owner and
outlined how the property does not appear to meet any of the designation
criteria for a Landmark or Structure of Merit based on the criteria and
National Register guidance on applying designation criteria
The following members of the public addressed the Landmarks Commission:
Mila Wolpert, Nina Fresco, Ruthann Lehrer, Louise Steiner, Andrew Hoyer, and
Eugene Alger.
In rebuttal Ms. Duane identified that it must not be only unique in a specific
way and does not necessarily mean the property itself is unique. She also
stated that it is not associated with California Modernism. Regarding the
Arcadia Terrace walkway, she noted that the northern property line is the
middle of the stairs.
In rebuttal, Ms. Voisin George stated that while it is not a singular example of
a singular style, it is still and important and representative example.
Commission discussion:
The Commission expressed a number of opinions on the property.
Some Commissioners opined that:
• The property represents the cultural development of beach culture
• The design appears unique including the configuration and the siding.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
5
Other Commissioners stated that while it may exemplify beach culture, it
doesn’t reflect anything wider than what it is and doesn’t meet the findings.
Supplemental information received during the previous meeting presented
the active role of Stotler, as original builder and owner of the property, in
advocacy and adoption of policies barring ownership of properties and
businesses by African Americans and other groups in Santa Monica and
other locations. Commissioner Sloan submitted proposed findings for
designation under Criteria One, including reference to Stotler's activities
advocating racial exclusion.
The City Attorney advised not to include that reference as there did not
appear to be a connection between the property and the owner’s racist
activities. The Commission concluded that designating the structure under
those terms would have the effect of lifting that history in a more positive light
and would be inappropriate.
Motion:
Chair Genser made a motion to designate the property under Criterion 1 with
findings as written by ARG, excluding listing of examples, and mention of
Stotler and including the wood siding, overall property configuration and
components of the entry to Arcadia Terrace. Chair Pro Tempore Breisch
seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Breisch, Garvin, Genser, Summers
NAYS: Brand, Green, Sloan
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
B. Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 212 San Vicente Boulevard 21ENT-
0112. Consideration of a revised landscape design, exterior building painting,
lighting, railing replacement and other maintenance items for an existing
multi-family residential apartment complex that is a Contributor within the
San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District.
Item continued from September 13, 2021.
9:33 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
6
All Commissioners visited the site prior to the last hearing and/or prior to
today’s hearing.
Chair Genser made a motion to grant the applicant team a total of 10 minutes
to present. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion. The motion was
approved unanimously by a voice vote.
Ms. Reich presented the staff report, identifying changes since the
September 13, 2021 review and recommending approval. She also stated that
the purpose of review is to determine whether the proposal is compatible
with the structure and the Historic District.
Robert Chattel, architectural historian with Chattel Inc, introduced the item
for the applicant team.
• He presented photographs of trees in the foundation planting which
were not planted within the period of significance.
• He also noted that the photographic record of each tree was included
in the submittal
• He also called attention to the structural engineer’s report and arborist
report.
• He stated that none of the planting is included as character defining for
the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District designation.
• He reminded the Commission that the scope of review is to determine
whether the property is compatible.
• He stated that the proposal is a contemporary landscape design
compatible with the building and District.
Jeff Appel, property owner, stated that he has always done his best to
support the historic district. And that his intent is to preserve, restore and
maintain the properties that contribute to the historic district. He also noted
that he received a Rehabilitation Award from the Santa Monica Conservancy
for the rehabilitation of a property up the street. He also noted that when he
submitted the application, he didn’t think it would upset the tenants, and it did.
Since the September 13, 2021, he and his team have had ongoing discussions
with the tenants in order to provide a project that meets their needs including
the trees and spacing, landscape materials, hardscape materials, and
security concerns. Mr. Appel also expressed his passion for the property and
interest in the courtyard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
7
Grace Solano, landscape architect with Salt identified that she referenced
design from this era in developing the landscape design. She also presented
the revised landscape and paving design, different landscape zones and
identified that the lawn alternative is within the central social area.
Commissioner Summers made a motion to limit public comment to 2 minutes
as more than 7 members of the public were waiting to speak as permitted by
the Commission’s Rules of Order. Commissioner Green seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Garvin, Genser, Green, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Andrew Holmes, Ruthann Lehrer, Judith Samuel, Kathryn Boole, Terrence
Rutledge, Daniella Hummel, Abigail Coleman, Louise Steiner, and Andrew
Hoyer.
In rebuttal, Jeff Appel expressed his frustration at the process and stated that
a few residents that are politically active have outsized influence on the
property.
Mr. Chattel stated that
• The structural engineer and arborist identified that the trees, irrigation
are and will continue to damage the foundation.
o And as the trees continue to grow, they will continue to damage
the foundation.
o The report identifies that the trees will be removed, and
drainage kept away from the building in order to protect the
foundation.
• He also noted that the proposal includes screening plantings
necessary for the building to the west, and the trees are past their
useful life.
Mr. Chattel also expressed his dismay at the hostility expressed to the
property owner who is presenting a thoughtful way to invest in and protect
the contributing structure. He also stated a willingness to work with the
Commission to address their concerns.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
8
Deputy City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln clarified that the City Designated
Historic Resource is the building and read aloud the finding necessary for
approval or denial.
Ms. von Tongeln also noted nothing in the Landmarks Ordinance discusses
the removal of trees or requires the removal of trees that are not separately
designated as City Landmarks.
Commission Discussion
The following comments were made by the Commission:
• Changes to the design responded to Commission’s comments from
the previous meeting.
• Structural engineer’s report identified elements that are to be
expected as the trees are too close to the building.
• Trees, hedges and informal seating were features of the courtyards of
the districts as are mature trees.
Commissioner Garvin asked if the photos she provided could be shared. Ms.
von Tongeln noted that additional information could not be included at that
point in the meeting unless the public and the applicant had the opportunity
to respond. Other Commissioners stated that they have all done their due
diligence, have visited and fully understand the Historic District.
Additional Comments
• The project represents a good approach to adaptive reuse/
rehabilitation in that it is not trying to create something that has never
existed.
• The proposal introduces new materials that are not historic but
continue to make the property viable.
• It’s possible that a new design is introduced into a historic district and
that it’s important to provide a contemporary design that is compatible
with the historic district.
• Good contemporary design is compatible with the Historic District.
• There are trees potentially damaging the building. None of the trees
are in the purview of the Commission or are character defining.
• Accessibility is very important, and concern was expressed that the
flagstone is not accessible.
• Owner has been very considerate of the residents and the neighbors.
We want to encourage him to keep and maintain the structure.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
9
• The tone has been somewhat hostile to the property owner that is
unfortunate.
• The property owner has represented an investment in the property
and gone way beyond what most owners would do. To make him jump
through more hoops would be ridiculous.
• The project is a good design, compatible with the district.
An opposing view requested the applicant team return with a revised plan
that:
• Retains some of the existing features,
• Remove from the concrete benches from the proposal,
• Remove the flagstone,
• Retain the hedges and retain more of the existing trees.
• An additional investigation to determine if the trees are undermining
the foundations was requested, and
• The proposal is not compatible.
Motion:
Commissioner Brand made a motion to approve and incorporate the finding
clarifications, and emergency order references. Chair Pro Tempore Breisch
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Sloan asked the maker to consider incorporating the hedges,
more green space, and remove the concrete benches as friendly
amendments. The maker of the motion did not accept the suggested
amendments.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green, Sloan
NAYS: Garvin, Chair Genser
ABSTAIN: Summers
ABSENT: None
5. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
• None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING (NEW BUSINESS)
• None.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
10
7. RESOLUTIONS
• None.
8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Possible appointment of two Commissioners, with one alternate, to an ad
hoc subcommittee to discuss and make recommendations on the public
engagement process concerning the contextualization of the murals in the City
Hall lobby.
Commissioners Green, Sloan, and Chair Genser volunteered.
Chair Pro Tempore Breisch nominated Commissioner Green and Chair Genser
with Commissioner Sloan as an alternate. Commissioner Summers seconded
the nomination.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Garvin Genser, Green, Sloan, Summers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 12:12 AM on
November 9, 2021.
Attest: Approved:
_______________________ _______________________
Wendy Radwan Roger Genser
Recording Secretary Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A1AA515-BCE5-4FEA-841C-9DC52E72B9A0
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: LC minutes 11-08-2021 (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 21ENT-0253
LOCATED AT 1665 APPIAN WAY
AS A CITY LANDMARK OR STRUCTURE OF MERIT
SECTION I. Shyle LP, the owner of the property at 1665 Appian Way, filed a demolition
permit application, on February 15, 2021. On March 18, 2021, Shawn Hugus submitted
historic resource designation application 21ENT-0067 to nominate the property at 1665
Appian Way as either a Landmark or a Structure of Merit. The Landmarks Commission,
having held a Public Hearing on November 08, 2021 found that the subject building
located at 1665 Appian Way met one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City
Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100. On November 16, 2021, Shyle LP filed a
timely appeal of the Commission’s decision. The City Council, on appeal, having held a
Public Hearing on June 14, 2022 hereby denies the designation of 1665 Appian Way as
a City Landmark or Structure of Merit based on the following findings:
LANDMARK CRITERIA
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The subject property is a simple, unremarkable example of a duplex typology, built in a period
where a variety of multi-family building typologies were being built in the area closest to the
beach as well as the adjacent Ocean Park neighborhood. As there were about 112 multi-
family residential properties built in this era and more than 10 percent of those properties
remain extant, the property does not warrant recognition. Additionally, other multi-family
properties from this era in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods (Bay Street Cluster,
4th Street Historic Corner District) have been recognized as exemplary of this typology.
Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under
Criterion 1.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy
interest or value.
The subject property is a vernacular building that lacks the distinctive characteristics of a
particular architectural style. Its features are more a testament to function than they are to
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
2
aesthetics. Because of its vernacular appearance, the building reads as a simple structure
that was erected to provide affordable, functional housing options to Santa Monica’s working
and middle-class residents – and was not intended to be a building of particular architectural
or aesthetic merit in the spirit of this criterion.
For these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not appear to be eligible for listing as a
Landmark under Criterion 2.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events
in local, state or national history.
There is insufficient evidence indicating that any of the people associated with the subject
property made significant contributions to history. Original owner John S. Stotler – who also
lived in one of the building’s dwelling units between 1914 and 1931 – appears to have had a
successful career, first in the mining industry and later as a local real estate developer, but
does not appear to have made any significant inroads to history that would render him a
historically significant individual in the spirit of this criterion. None of the subsequent owners
or tenants associated with the building appear to be of historical significance. The scant
information that is available about these individuals indicates that they lived typical lives and
were employed in typical vocations.
There is also insufficient evidence to indicate that the property is associated with a significant
event in local, state, or national history. It appears to have functioned as nothing more than a
typical multi-family dwelling between its original (1914) construction and the present day. For
these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not appear to be eligible for listing as a
Landmark under Criterion 3.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable
to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials
or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type valuable to such a study.
As discussed in the evaluation against Landmark Criterion 2, the subject property is a
vernacular structure that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural style. There is
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
3
also nothing particularly noteworthy about its method of construction or craftsmanship, as it
is a conventional wood frame building utilizing methods and materials typical of the era in
which it was constructed. The subject property does not read as a particularly strong example
of any particular multi-family property type identified in the City of Santa Monica Historic
Context Statement. It has four units, but does not present as a fourplex; it also contains a
pedestrian passage between its volumes, but lacks the shared open space that is
characteristic of bungalow courts and courtyard housing. It lacks the height and the density
characteristic of apartment houses. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence showing
that it is a unique or rare example of an architectural or historical type valuable to a study, per
this criterion.
The building does not appear to be significant on the merits of its architecture. Its significance
is derived from its use and associative qualities, not for reasons relating to its physical design.
Therefore, 1665-1671 Appian Way does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark
under Criterion 4.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
Original building permits for the subject property are not available; supplemental research
about the property indicates that it was not designed by an architect, and was built by building
contractor F.N. Jones. No pertinent information could be found about the life, career, or
contributions of Jones; available documentation indicates that he was a locally-based building
contractor who erected the occasional building but was not especially prolific in their craft.
Given the lack of information about F.N. Jones – and the lack of an architect of record – there
is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the building is a representative example of the wok
or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. For these reasons, 1665-1671 Appian
Way does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 5.
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is
an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
4
The subject property does not possess any singular feature or physical characteristic that stands
out as memorable or noteworthy. While it reads as considerably older that most other buildings
in the immediate vicinity, there is nothing particularly notable about its design or appearance
apart from its relative age. It is located on a typical residential lot on a lesser-traveled street, and
does not occupy a particularly prominent location. It may be familiar to those who reside in the
neighborhood and pass by on a regular basis, but to the casual passer-by the building does not
stand out as an aesthetically distinctive resource in the spirit of this criterion. It is compatible
with, and blends into its surroundings. For these reasons, ARG concludes that 1665-1671 Appian
Way does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Landmark under Criterion 6.
STURCTURE OF MERIT CRITERIA
9.56.080(A): The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). As
noted, in the most recent (2018) iteration of the HRI, it was flagged as potentially eligible for
individual listing and was assigned the California Historical Resources Status Code of 5S3:
“appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey
evaluation.” However, based on further evaluation as noted above, the property does not appear
eligible for listing under any Structure of Merit criteria.
9.56.080(B): The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
The subject property is a minimum of 50 years of age as it was constructed in 1914.
Therefore, the structure is eligible for further consideration under the following criteria:
(B)(1). The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type.
The subject property is a simple design of a property type for which more than 10% of similar
property types built in the 1910s are extant. The subject property does not stand out as an
architectural design, detail or historic type and is not rare, and therefore does not appear to be
eligible for designation under this criterion.
(B)(2). The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
5
The building is more than 50 years of age. However, as noted in the evaluation against Landmark
Criteria 2 and 4, it is a vernacular building that lacks distinctive characteristics of an architectural
style. Additionally, while the property was not influential on other properties, vernacular buildings
are ubiquitous throughout Santa Monica and remains prevalent. For these reasons, Appian Way
does not appear to satisfy Structure of Merit Criterion B.2.
(B)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The subject property has not been identified as a contributor to a historic district. Therefore, it
does not appear to be eligible for listing as a Structure of Merit under this criterion.
SECTION ll. Parcel Designation
Because staff is not recommending designation of the structures, staff does not recommend
designation of the parcel.
SECTION lll. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately
reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on June 14,
2022 as determined by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record of the
proceedings relating to this designation. All summaries of information contained herein
or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of
any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is
not based in part on that fact.
Respectfully Submitted
June 14, 2022
Sue Himmelrich, Mayor
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
6
Attest:
Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0253 1665 Appian Way Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of
President
Jon Katz
VP Political Action
Danny Ivanov
VP Membership
Michael Soloff
VP Programs
Melissa Goodman
VP Diversity & Inclusion
Rana Kirkland
VP Legislation
Isabel Storey
Treasurer
Dan Hall
Recording Secretary
Peter Bradley
At-Large
Antonella Borjas
Janine Bush
Derek Devermont
Patricia Hoffman
Dolores Sloan
Date: June 10, 2022
To: Mayor Sue Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan, Council Members Phil
Brock, Gleam Davis, Lana Negrete, Christine Parra, and Oscar de la Torre
From: Executive Board of the Santa Monica Democratic Club
Subject: Item 6A - Appeal of City Landmarks designation for 1665 Appian Way
The Executive Board of the Santa Monica Democratic Club requests that you support
the appeal of the owner of 1665 Appian Way to reverse the decision of the Landmarks
Commission on November 8, 2021, designating the subject residence a City
Landmark and the property known as 1665 Appian Way as a Landmarks Parcel.
During the Commission hearings requesting designation on September 13, 2021 and
November 8, 2021, data was presented documenting the active association of John
Stotler, the property’s builder and former owner, as a founder and active member of
the Santa Monica Bay Protection League. The organization was successful in adding
restrictions to city zoning limiting property sales to caucasian buyers, also known as
‘redlining.’ The League also won support from city real estate professionals, who
added similar restrictions in private and business ownership covenants. This
subsequently forced an African American owner of beachfront land close to Stotler’s,
where Shutters now stands, to abandon ownership and plans for facilities serving
black families wanting to enjoy seaside activities.
Stotler’s racist language was quoted in local newspapers of the time as he advocated
against black property ownership. City records show him living at the designated
property for several decades after construction, well into his later years. It is hard to
imagine said property not being a site for verbal or written action regarding his
redlining efforts.
Since May 25, 2020, the witness of George Floyd’s murder has created a national
public awareness and renewed call for social justice to redress the ongoing
commission of violence and discrimination against Blacks and people of color. Santa
Monica has been very present in this reckoning. Council, Staff, and many
organizations and residents are reviewing conscious and unconscious actions against
diversity, equity and inclusion - now and in the past. Council has sought comments
and approved actions to move the needle along the arc of justice, such as agendizing
public comment from members of the Black Agenda, supporting the Black Lives
P.O. Box 1052 • Santa Monica,CA 90406 • 215-962-4357 • smdemocrats@gmail.com
Item 6.A 06/14/22
1 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
Association, and establishing the Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission. Item
6A on your June 14 agenda is a moment in that reckoning. You are being asked to
reverse a City Landmarks designation for a property built and lived in by a foremost
architect and advocate of local redlining, which successfully prevented people of color
and their families from building wealth and security through property ownership in
most of Santa Monica for much of the last century and into the present.
In reviewing the history of 1665 Appian Way, the Executive Board of the Santa Monica
Democratic Club has sought and listened to input from its African American club
members, reviews of the situation by persons of color, as well as input from
organizations such as those cited above and the Committee on Racial Justice. We
support the request to deny a property owned, built, and lived in by a racist, who
undoubtedly conducted related activities promoting redlining within the parcel’s
borders, the honor of a City Landmarks designation. We hear the pain and witness the
exhaustion from what has become ordinary in America for people of color: continuing
harassment, violence, and death while conducting what for whites are ordinary
activities such as driving a car, shopping in a market in your neighborhood, going to
the neighborhood school, or church, or synagogue. This Landmark honor of 1665
Appian Way is an insult and an affront and we join Staff in asking you to approve the
appeal, allowing the owner a Certificate of Authorization to demolish it. We do not
support a constant visible reminder of pain and discrimination, such as a plaque or
educational material placed on or near the site. Recognition of the above in your
decision will add further documentation of a great wrong and a measure toward justice
still to be claimed.
On behalf of the Executive Board,
Jon Katz
Chair of the Executive Board
President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
Item 6.A 06/14/22
2 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Angela Scott <appointedscribe7@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 12, 2022 11:14 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin
McCowan; councilmtgitems
Cc:Robbie Jones; Janet McKeithen; Joanne Berlin
Subject:6.A - Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark
EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers.
I’m writing as a fellow resident of Santa Monica and as a member of the Committee for Racial Justice Steering
Committee. We are gravely concerned about the current appeal before you regarding the Landmark
Commission’s initial decision to designate 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark. I humbly ask you to view this
decision through a Social Justice lens and consider supporting the appeal of the owner of 1665 Appian Way. I
implore you to reverse the decision of the Landmarks Commission on November 8, 202l, designating the
subject residence a City Landmark and the property known as 1665 Appian Way as a Landmarks Parcel.
If we are to truly reimagine Santa Monica as an inclusive place of belonging for all, then how do we do this in
good conscience while landmarking the residence of a known white supremacist? John Stotler, the property's
builder, and owner is the founder and active member of the Santa Monica Bay Protection League. This racist
organization ushered in a series of discriminatory acts and ordinances – including implementing a “Caucasian
Clause” with systemic policies preventing African American residents from owning businesses or homes by the
beach.
From a social justice lens, please consider members of the population most affected by Stotler's monstrous,
horrific acts of racism and systemic oppression. Consider the African-American residents of the past, present,
and future - all have been impacted by Stotler's actions.
Ask yourself the following?
Are we perpetuating exclusionary policies by preserving homes with racist histories?
Does it matter whether or not we know if Klan meetings, issues regarding redlining, or white supremacist
efforts occurred at the said property? Is that a loophole worth justifying?
What are we as a city saying about creating a more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and community of belonging
when we landmark a structure owned by a well-known white supremacist? What are we saying to our Black,
Latinx, Asian Pacific Americans, Jewish Americans, and the LGBTQ+ community affected by the horrors of
systemic policies?
I implore you to please consider the trauma John Stotler perpetrated on generations of victims through
redlining and other discriminatory acts!
The Santa Monica Bay Protection League also attacked Black Commerce. The area where Shutters is now
located prevented black businessmen from building a resort and amusement facility exclusive to blacks. Why?
Because they wanted to keep Black people out of Santa Monica and its beaches. Yet, two years later, white
investors were allowed to build the Casa Del Mar Resort. Racism is deeply embedded in structures and
institutions within this city. What will you do to help create impactful change?
But covenants did more than steer people to certain neighborhoods. They also determined who could buy
property. " These practices pushed people of color into areas that were redlined, which made it almost
impossible to acquire affordable financing to buy property. And once they identified a home, "the already
inflated price is made higher for Negro prospects.”
Item 6.A 06/14/22
3 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
2
By the time that covenants were abolished, the damage was done. Thanks to Stotler, we are still living with the
legacies of these discriminatory deeds. Since most families amass wealth through property ownership, this
homeownership gap continues to feed our contemporary racial wealth gap with one generation passing
resources to another. The racial wealth gap makes it hard to end residential segregation. And it contributes in
every way to the racial disparities in education, health outcomes, and employment facing our community
today.
Let us walk in solidarity as we tread a progressive path that's diverse, equitable, and inclusive.
Thank you for your time and deep thought into these impactful decisions as they afford generational change for
Santa Monicans.
Warmest,
Angela
Angela D. Scott
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by
implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 6.A 06/14/22
4 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Weinstein <ellenrkw@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 12, 2022 10:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:1665-1671 Appian Way City Landmark
EXTERNAL
I've been a Santa Monica resident since 1982 and frequently walk down near the Loews Hotel. I wholeheartedly support
the Landmark Commission‘s decision designating 1665–1671 Appian Way a City Landmark.
This extraordinary one‐story historic building is truly unique, depicting elements of Santa Monica’s early residential
development and economic history, with a distinctive architectural historical type.
Since Mr. Michael Rahimi bought the property it seems he could care less about its historic value and significance. He
proposes to replace it with a 40 foot high structure which significantly encroaches on the city's zoning codes. In
addition, replacing the building with two pricey condominiums that will in all probability be owned by wealthy absentee
owners and not city residents.
Thank you for your consideration in designating 1665‐1671 a City Landmark.
Yours truly,
Ellen Weinstein
Item 6.A 06/14/22
5 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Theo Marshall <tmarshall43@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 8:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:1665 Appian isn’t a Landmark worth saving
EXTERNAL
Why are you keeping 1665 Appian? Tear it down already.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
6 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elena Christopoulos <elenach@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 8:13 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6A: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City
Landmark
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
We are writing in support of Item 6A: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City
Landmark. Landmark’s City Staff deemed this building not worthy of any designation and we agree with them. This
building should have never had to reach City Council. It housed a racist which founded zoning practices which didn’t
allow BIPOC to buy property in Santa Monica. We are tearing down racist monuments everywhere but here in Santa
Monica we want to landmark them? It will say a lot about who we really are as a City if we landmark this. We truly hope
you won’t.
Sincerely,
Commissioner, Elena Christopoulos
Landmark Commissioner, Richard Brand, AIA
Item 6.A 06/14/22
7 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Villa Appia <villaappia1661@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 9:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:21ENT-0253, 0067
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We are the owners of 1661 Appian Way, which is directly north of the subject property, and on the other side of
Arcadia Terrace, the walkway that is a recorded easement to be used for walk and park purposes only
We support the application to designate the property in whole, or in part, as a Santa Monica landmark.
We are of the opinion that the findings and determination of the Landmarks Commission issued and signed on
November 8, 2021, should be adopted immediately by the Council
The appeal at hand is only a rehash of the same points raised by the appellant before the Landmark
Commission, which the Commission considered in length before it issued its determination. Therefore the
appeal should be denied.
The appeal shows that the appellant attempts to manipulate the fact that the initial developer/owner of the
property was a racist to invalidate the Landmark Commission findings.
If the Council believes that there is a direct nexus between a person's private residence and his racist actions
outside the house, then it should only be another reason to merit the landmark designation.
We refer Council to the filed Memorandum by Stephanie Reich,who it appears has filed reports all along for
appellant, who states as follows:
"At question is whether the association between racial history and the subject property is strong enough to merit
designation for this reason. National Register Bulletin 15A: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
is instructive in evaluating which properties are significant for their association with historic events'. (page 3 of the
Memorandum)
She then expresses her opinion that there is not a strong enough connection between the property and the racist
attitudes held by the initial owner
"Thus, ARG does not believe there is sufficient basis for adding racial history to the argument in favor of Landmark
Criterion 1." (page 4 of the Memorandum)
The property is unique in location, design and structure.
The designation is a big step in the right direction.
In fact, we are surprised that the City has not initiated this proceeding for historic assessment on its own a long
time ago.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
8 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
2
For years, and since he bought the property, the appellant proposed to demolish the property in its entirety,
ignoring completely its historic nature, and instead to build on the site a utterly modern structure that
completely ignores the zoning regulations re height and setback measurements. His proposal also seeks to
completely invalidate the long historic recorded Easement which is defined as Arcadia Terrace.
The primary factor that blocked him until now are us, all the neighbors along Arcadia Terrace, who object to his
grandiose plans.
He took us to Court in 2017, forced us to spend time and money, and finally dismissed the case after the
mediation session when he realized that we are not going to back off and that he is not going to win
After that he filed an application with the ARB for a Variance in fact abolishing again the historic recorded
Easement.
He set the hearing in November 2020 attempting to use the fact that the neighbors were involved with the
Covid 19 especially pre vaccination, and could not appear, and that the commissioners were not so cognizant
of the historic nature of the property and Arcadia Terrace, the history of the project and the dispute over the
Easement. During the hearing, that was not live, his attorney pushed the false proposition that the bottom part
of Arcadia Terrace is not part of the Easement or the walk street.
We were saved by one commissioner.
Sincerely
Tova Kitron
Miri Lerner
Item 6.A 06/14/22
9 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:HowTheWest Was Saved <howthewestws@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 10:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for Item 6A
EXTERNAL
Regarding 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark; We DO not need to preserve a racist
historical building that SHOULD be used for housing. Santa Monica city & many other
coastal cities have been upholding illegal segregation as it relates to race & class, but by
preserving this building you are in fact proving that that is the goal of politicians &
therefore, you are committing an act of systematic violence against the people!
‐‐
Best,
Tieira
https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Walkable, bike-friendly communities that are affordable are the right of every single human being. These
communities are great for humanity, other species, and the Earth itself! Everything in the HUE-MANS life
does NOT need to be a drive away.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
10 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Church in Ocean Park <minister@ciop4justice.org>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 11:49 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin
McCowan; councilmtgitems
Cc:Robbie J5; Joanne Berlin; Angela Scott
Subject:6.A - Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark
EXTERNAL
City Councilmembers,
I'm Janet Gollery McKeithen, the minister of the Church in Ocean Park, the President of the Santa Monica Area Interfaith
Council, a Director on the Santa Monica Bay Human Relations Council, and a member of the Committee for Racial Justice
Steering Committee. I am writing on behalf of myself, the Church in Ocean Park and the Committee for Racial
Justice. (The only reason that I'm not representing the Interfaith Council or the Human Relations Council on this is that
we have not discussed it. I'm fairly certain that they would agree)
I am imploring you to reverse the decision of the Landmarks Commission of November 8, 2021 of designating 1665
Appian Way as a Landmark Parcel.
First, there is no compelling reason for the Landmark designation, as noted in the staff report and elsewhere.
Secondly and most important to me is that the property's owner and builder, John Stotler, not only was a white
supremacist himself, but was one of the leaders of the Santa Monica Bay Protection League, and held Klan‐like meetings
in that home. As a result of what went on in that home, systemic racist policies were put in place. Policies that
determined who could buy property in Santa Monica and who could own businesses where. Policies that
created whites only beaches, whites only neighborhoods, whites only schools, whites only stores, etc.
I know that the City of Santa Monica is working to undo some of the historical and current trauma and create a more
equitable community. I know we are all trying to undo the long‐standing, deeply ingrained systemic oppression that this
country is built on. You have the opportunity to take a small but important step in that direction.
You may believe that Landmarking this building isn't about racism at all. That it is about a building. But this is exactly
how racist oppression and practices and trauma are perpetuated. When leaders believe they need to "stay in their lane"
and not do anything differently, systems cannot change, nothing changes!. You do have the power to change this. I
hope you will consider whether landmarking this white supremacist leaders home is worth the continual trauma that
will be perpetuated on communities of color today and in the future. It's in your hands. I hope you will not create more
trauma and will reverse the decision. Hate is escalating and racism is rampant. Please do NOT create more trauma!
‐Thank you,
Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen
Minister, Church in Ocean Park
President, Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council
Steering Committee, Committee for Racial Justice
Item 6.A 06/14/22
11 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
June 13, 2022 Re: Item 6A - Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way as a City
Landmark Honorable City Council,
The Santa Monica Conservancy would like to provide the following perspective on the appeal of
the Landmarks Designation of 1665 Appian Way, which provides the city with an opportunity to
begin a deep and productive conversation on the partnership between historic preservation and
racial justice education.
An Architecturally Significant Landmark
1665 Appian Way was nominated for landmark designation by a private individual in March
2021. To prepare the application, the applicant hired a professional architectural historian who
found that the property was significant under Landmark Criterion 4 as a rare example of a
double bungalow architectural type that is valuable for study. According to procedures outlined
in the Landmarks Ordinance, the city hired another architectural historian who found the
property significant for a similar reason but choosing to interpret it under Landmark Criterion 1
for its association with Santa Monica’s economic history as a rare example of a type of early
multi-family development in the city. The city’s architectural historian also found that it could
qualify as a Structure of Merit under Criterion B1 as a rare, intact example of purpose-built multi-
family housing. Disregarding the expertise of two trained and qualified, professional architectural
historians, staff was not impressed, describing the subject property as “unremarkable and hardly
unique.” Citing several comparables, staff did not recommend the designation to the Landmarks
Commission.
When materials for the Landmarks Commission hearing on the nomination were published by
city staff for the September hearing, the Advocacy Committee of the Santa Monica Conservancy
was surprised to read the negative staff recommendation in light of the abundant professional
expertise supporting the designation. The Conservancy conducted a third independent review of
the property, paying special attention to the comparables cited by staff to support their negative
recommendation. As most were from different time periods or were entirely different multi-unit
property types, the Conservancy began to prepare its own statement of significance to present
to the Landmarks Commission at the hearing. Noting that there are only four truly comparable
examples of its multifamily type remaining city-wide today, a type that had only just started to
appear in Santa Monica around the time the subject property was built, and finding the subject
property to be unique among them for its blend of Craftsman and early modernist details that
exemplify the transition permanent and visitor accommodations were undergoing at the time,
the Conservancy recommended that 1665 Appian Way be designated as a landmarks under
both Criterion 1 and Criterion 4.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
12 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
9.56.100(A)(1). [The resource] exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. The subject property exemplifies,
symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural
history of the City, through its association with patterns of early multi-family residential
development in the city and in Schader’s Seaview Terrace Subdivision in particular. The subject
flats were among the many types of multi-family dwellings built in Schader’s Seaview Terrace
subdivision, which was specifically marketed for development of apartments and hotels for the
wealthy as summer homes and year-round accommodation. The subdivision was accessed by
Appian Way, which was one of the city’s first streets to be paved in concrete in order to provide
convenient access for the automobile which was quickly rising in popularity and would soon
dominate transportation in California. The subject property was built with compact, space
efficient flats that reflected high quality design features in an unexpectedly modern application to
appeal to wealthy tourists coming for long stays. At the time of construction of the subject
property, the wealthy were accustomed to hotel accommodations that provided services, or
detached home rentals, where they settled in for longer stays with commodious baggage and
servants. Seaside Terrace was marketed as a place where a new modern, streamlined
accommodation type could be found for the wealthy who travelled more lightly than in the past,
with only what they could fit in the trunk of an automobile. Purpose-built multi-family housing
options like the subject property were introduced in Santa Monica in the 1910s as testament to
the profound influence that leisure, recreation, and tourism had on Santa Monica’s built
environment at the time. Their relatively compact footprints and efficient use of space reflect the
ways in which developers adapted and responded to a demand for a middle ground between
hotels and the single-family house in order to better accommodate the itinerant lifestyles of
tourists and others drawn to Santa Monica’s culture and climate. The subject property is a very
rare example of the city’s earliest purpose-built flats; eighteen contemporaneous examples were
identified on maps city-wide, of which only three remain extant, including the subject property.
Multi-family flats, low scale, wooden structures with one or two units per floor, proliferated in the
city soon after the subject property was built, and disappeared during the 1950s and 1960s
when they were replaced with larger apartment buildings. In addition, the subject property
retains a high degree of integrity since its original 1914 construction date, enabling it to convey
its significance.
9.56.100(A)(4). [The resource] embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study
of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a
unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type valuable to such a
study. The subject building is unique as a property type and does not resemble other examples
of early multi-family buildings of the time because of its distinctive attempt to modernize the
Craftsman style by applying typical Craftsman design elements to an early modernist building
form. The design of 1665 Appian Way exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style such as
unusual varied width horizontal wood clapboard siding (one wide, two narrow) of which no other
example is known of in the city. The tripartite window systems with wide board surrounds are
Craftsman features, along with the notched beams, and bracketed, timbered ledges below each
window, perhaps intended to support planter boxes. The flats add a unique twist to the
vocabulary of single-family Craftsman homes by recomposing them onto a simple and unified
geometric modernist massing. Early Modernism is reflected in the flats by a continuous simple
parapet and bold, decorative cornice that ties the entire composition together. The simple forms
not only reflect early Modernism, but are uniquely appropriate to the site, which by the design
Item 6.A 06/14/22
13 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
intention of the subdivision, was not supposed to block the ocean views of the homes above.
These design features appear to work together in fulfillment of the specific goal for a new,
modern type of multi-unit housing that was envisioned in the original concept for in Carl F.
Schader’s Seaview Terrace Tract. In addition, the building retains most of its original features
and a high level of architectural integrity. Furthermore, elements of the original 1911 gateway to
Arcadia Terrace remain extant on the subject site. Tapered pillars rise on either side of steps
that brought visitors to the top of a retaining wall and onto the sloping walkway of Arcadia
Terrace. The pillars are etched with the identifier “Arcadia Terrace,” and set back about 20 feet
from Appian Way to create a small seating area surrounded by cement railings that had built-in
benches and planter boxes along the sides and back. The pillars are both extant (only one is on
the subject property). Sections of the railings are also extant. The cement paving is also original,
still bearing the stamp of Fred M. Stout, who did the grading and cement work when the tract
was first established. They are character defining features of the site.
A Heinous Story of Racial Discrimination
In the course of its review to complete that third assessment on the rarity and significance of the
building type, the Santa Monica Conservancy found an association of the
owner/builder/occupant of 1665 Appian Way with heinous acts propagated against African
Americans in the city, including economic discrimination, intimidation, and organizing of a
Protective League that promulgated racial injustice in the city. This additional layer of
information discovered the day of the hearing had to be hastily pulled together to be shared with
Landmarks Commissioners. Since the last-minute submittal did not provide sufficient time to
digest the material and figure out what to do with the new information, the hearing was
continued to their next meeting. In the interim, the Conservancy developed the full story on the
owner’s racist actions, and spoke to people in the community and in the field of historic
preservation with expertise in handling sensitive narratives and historic resources related to
discrimination against African Americans. After considerable discussion, the Conservancy still
held that 1665 Appian Way qualified as a Landmark for its architectural style and building type,
and for its associations with the economic history of the city, but recommended that the
Landmarks Commission through further discussion determine if there was any educational
value to referencing the racist narrative or not.
The difficult narrative centers on the owner/builder of the property. John S. Stotler was an
investor in Carl Schader’s Seaview Terrace, owning shares in several parcels and holding a
number of others singly. He built three structures including the subject property, where he lived
from when it was new until his death in 1931. In 1914, John S. Stotler offered parcels for sale at
the corner at Pico Boulevard between Appian Way and the ocean, seeking a buyer interested in
developing an auditorium or other commercial amusement use. Harry Culver, founder of Culver
City, stepped up claiming a plan to build a pier there. But he did not act quickly enough, so
when the nearby Looff Pier opened, Culver sold the parcel to his father-in-law, William P.
Roberts. In about 1921, Roberts sold the parcel to the Ocean Frontage Syndicate, a group of
“wealthy colored men” who were planning to build a bath house that would welcome African
Americans. In March 1922, the Ocean Frontage Syndicate filed an application with the Santa
Monica Building Superintendent for an exception to the single-unit zoning of their parcel
according to procedures laid out in the zoning ordinance, so they could begin construction of the
bath house. The city council denied the application without comment. In response to those
Item 6.A 06/14/22
14 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
events, a new coalition of racist businessmen formed what was called the Santa Monica Bay
Protective League. Many of the most prominent businessowners in the city signed up. They met
in the offices of the Chamber of Commerce, and their spokesperson and secretary was John S.
Stotler. Their mission was to “keep Santa Monica, Ocean Park and Venice white communities.”
Stotler was directly quoted in the newspapers evoking ugly racist tropes across many
paragraphs intended to intimidate African Americans and frighten area whites into joining the
cause. He concluded by offering his home address at 18 Arcadia Terrace (aka 1665 Appian
Way, the subject property), along with the business addresses of a few others as locations
where new members could sign up. Stotler’s crystal clear incendiary statements were heard all
the way in Los Angeles where the Ocean Frontage Syndicate announced the next morning that
they would abandon their plan to build a bath house in Santa Monica at the foot of Pico
Boulevard. They did not wish to push back against a community so unalterably opposed to their
presence. A place of recreation and relaxation would not be possible for African Americans in
Santa Monica. John S. Stotler purchased the parcel back from the Ocean Frontage Syndicate.
He inserted a Caucasian restriction into the deed before selling it along with a large adjacent
parcel to the east to Paul and Genevieve Schenk. The Schenk’s built the Edgewater Beach
Club there. Today it is the location of Shutters Hotel.
At the Landmarks Commission hearing, almost a century later, an extended discussion
considered if there was value to the public in using this story to promote an understanding of
how racism existed in Santa Monica in the early 20th century with the same vengeance as
anywhere else in the United States. A majority of Commissioners felt that any possible value in
telling Stotler’s story could not be garnered through recognition of it in this designation. At that
November 2021 meeting, the Landmarks Commission voted 4:3 to designate 1665 Appian Way
as a Landmark under Criterion 1, for its economic and cultural significance as an
accommodation type with no mention of the racist narrative in the findings. The present-day
property owner, who has been developing plans to demolish the vintage four-unit structure and
replace it with three modern condominiums filed a timely appeal of the designation so he could
follow through with his project as planned.
Racial Justice and Landmark Designation
While the Santa Monica Conservancy, the Landmarks Commission, and two independent
architectural historians have determined that the rare 1914 structure at 1665 Appian Way meets
the criteria for landmark designation architecturally, the racist narrative associated with this
property as well as the recent controversy regarding City Hall’s historic Stanton Macdonald-
Wright mural highlights a need greater than this individual nomination to develop a framework
for considering histories of racial inequity and social injustice in the city Landmark Designation
process going forward. Such a framework would serve to structure discussion of emerging
landmark designation findings when sensitive or painful race-related narratives likely to emerge
in Santa Monica arise. It is unfortunate that a decision on this designation must be made without
one.
Out of our recent discussions of these issues with many active in racial justice in the city, came
a Santa Monica Conservancy partnership with the Committee for Racial Justice Housing
Committee. We are considering ideas for public conversation about how each of our missions
can support the other groups goals, and development of a framework for guiding discussion of
Item 6.A 06/14/22
15 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
race-related narratives in the context of Landmark Designation. To support and participate in
this effort, we suggest the City Council direct the Landmarks Commission to begin a discussion
or series of discussions on the role historic preservation can play in pursuit of racial justice, and
the interaction between goals of racial justice education and historic preservation. The
Landmarks Commission could also be directed to appoint a member or two as a small task
force to interact with the Santa Monica Conservancy, the Committee for Racial Justice Housing
Committee, and others interested in pursuing this work, so they may report back to the
Landmarks Commission as a whole for further discussion. The Landmarks Commission would
be a critical partner in this important work.
Sincerely,
President, Santa Monica Conservancy www.smconservancy.org
Item 6.A 06/14/22
16 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
m.h.c. | ph.d. historian and more
www.alisonrosejefferson.com
June 13, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: City of Santa Monica Council Meeting, Item 6, Administrative Proceedings, 1665 Appian Way,
June 14, 2022
This letter is in support of the four unit, 1665-1671 Appian Way, Santa Monica, California
application to designate the site as a local landmark for its significance under Criterion 1, for
exemplifying elements of the City’s history as an early example of purpose-built multi-family
housing in Santa Monica. This multi-family property constructed in 1914 is a rare example of its
pre-1920 age and type. The property was considered in the 2018 City’s Historic Resources
Inventory as a property to be flagged as potentially eligible for individual listing as a local
landmark.
Also based on the plans submitted to the City’s Planning Department I have reviewed the current
owner wants to demolish the four unit/two buildings complex which presently contains rental
housing to construct a two unit condominium housing project which could become owner or
renter occupied. This owner’s proposed new project takes away two housing units at a time when
all citizens and their government representatives in California are being asked to increase housing
unit numbers all over the state including in Santa Monica and its California Coastal zone.
With the landmark designation of the 1914 buildings, rare exemplifying features of City’s
historical character will be maintained. With this landmark designation action the owner and his
architect will have the opportunity to develop an innovative rehabilitation of the site to retain the
four units of housing.
As a professional historian and heritage conservation consultant who has developed an expertise
in Santa Monica and Southern California histories, I have been asked by the various individuals
involved in the Appian Way landmark designation support and the property owner who does not
support the designation for my consultation. I gave each my researched and informed opinion as
Item 6.A 06/14/22
17 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
m.h.c. | ph.d. historian and more
www.alisonrosejefferson.com
Page 2
Re: City of Santa Monica Council Meeting, Item 6, Administrative Proceedings, 1665 Appian Way,
June 14, 2022
a profession observer who has not been paid as a consultant by any of the parties involved. You
have this opinion on the record and in writing here in this letter.
Sincerely,
Alison Rose Jefferson
Historian and Heritage Conservation Consultant
Author of:
• Living the California Dream: African American Leisure Sites during the Jim Crow Era (University
of Nebraska Press, 2020)
• “Reconstruction and Reclamation: The Erased African American Experience in Santa Monica’s
History” (Belmar History + Art, 2020)
• Phillips Chapel Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Santa Monica local landmark
designation (Listed 2005)
Co-Author of:
• With Michael Blum, Bay Street Beach Historic District National Register listing nomination
(Listed 2019)
• With Galvin Preservation Associates, SurveyLA African American Historic Context Statement
(2018)
Item 6.A 06/14/22
18 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Toby Muresianu <toby.hardtospell@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 4:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Emailing in support of 6 A. Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian
Way as a City Landmark.
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I live in West LA with my wife, who works as a doctor at Santa Monica Hospital. We are looking for a home in the area
and there is so little housing available that we will likely be forced to move far away in order to find a home for our
young family.
The research from the state of California, out of UCLA, and from the federal government is very clear that we need
radically more housing. In any context, it's ridiculous to landmark the former home of someone who created
exclusionary zoning to keep the less fortunate out of Santa Monica. But it's particularly egregious to do so in order
directly to prevent much needed housing from being built.
The housing shortage not only affects people who work in Santa Monica and are deliberately prevented from living
there, it negatively affects people who already live in Santa Monica too. Rents are pushed higher. Traffic from people
like us who work in the area causes delays and pollutes the air. Higher rents increase the number of homeless on our
streets.
Please rethink the move to preserve an ugly chapter of Santa Monica's past at the expense of its future.
All the best
Toby Muresianu
Item 6.A 06/14/22
19 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
Item 6.A 06/14/22
20 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 :
June 10, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 208
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Decision to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City
Landmark
Dear Councilmembers:
We are writing at the request of our client, Shyle LP, owner of the property at 1665 Appian Way (subject
property). GPA Consulting (GPA) respectfully disagrees with the Landmarks Commission
(Commission) decision to designate the subject property, and supports the Planning Staff
recommendation that City Council approve the appeal and deny designation of 1665 Appian Way.
On February 15, 2021, a demolition permit application was filed for the building on the subject
property. During the 75-day demolition permit waiting period, a member of the public filed a Landmark
Nomination Application (Nomination) on March 18, 2021. The Nomination asserted that the subject
property was one of few surviving examples of “small-scale rental housing on the beach” dating to the
1910s as well as a rare example of a historic architectural type valuable for study (a “double-
bungalow”) under Criterion 1 and 4, respectively. The Landmark Assessment Report prepared by the
City’s consultant, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), concluded that the property appeared to
satisfy Criterion 1, generally on the basis of rarity. The Nomination item was first reviewed and
discussed by the Commission during the hearing on September 13, 2021. In light of additional
information about the original property owner being shared with the Commission, the item was
continued to a second hearing. The second hearing was held on November 8, 2021.
The Staff Reports prepared for both hearings recommended denial of the designation due to a lack of
historical and architectural distinction. After a thorough review of the Nomination, ARG report, and
Staff Report, GPA concurred with Planning Staff’s recommendation. GPA provided the Commission
with additional information in support of denying the designation in a letter and presentation to the
Commissioners at both hearings. However, the Commission moved to designate 1665 Appian Way as
a Landmark Parcel on November 8, 2021. Subsequently, the property owner filed an appeal to this
decision on November 16, 2021.
As recorded in the Statement of Official Action (STOA), the designation is based on a finding that the
subject property “exemplifies elements of Santa Monica’s economic history, specifically those
associated with patterns of early residential development,” and is “one of but only a few examples of
early (pre-1920) purpose-built multi-family residential development in Santa Monica that remains
Item 6.A 06/14/22
21 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
extant and retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with key patterns of residential
development and economic history.”1
In addition to the information provided in the Staff Report for this appeal, it is GPA’s professional
opinion that the finding recorded in the STOA under Criterion 1 does not provide sufficient evidence
demonstrating that the building has an important association with historic events or trends, and that
the perception of the property’s rarity used to lend it significance is skewed by irrelevant comparisons.
As detailed below, our position is supported by best-practices in the field of historic preservation, per
guidance put forth by the National Park Service, and is in line with Planning Staff’s analysis as
presented in the Staff Report for the agenda item currently in discussion.
National Park Service Guidance Regarding Associative Significance
The National Register of Historic Places Bulletins are a series of federal publications distributed by the
National Park Service that outline best practices for the identification, evaluation, and protection of
historic resources at local, state, and national levels of significance. The vast majority of local
preservation programs, including Santa Monica’s, are based on the National Register of Historic
Places and its four criteria for eligibility. As such, it is industry standard to follow the guidance in the
Bulletins, particularly in the event that specific local guidance to the contrary does not exist. The
bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Bulletin) includes detailed guidance
on how to evaluate resources under each of the criteria within an appropriate context, as well as
detailed examples for what does, or does not, constitute historic significance.
Properties that are significant for their association with events or trends are considered under National
Register Criterion A, which is closely mirrored by the language used in Santa Monica Criterion 1:
National Register Criterion A Santa Monica Criterion 1
[Properties] that are associated with events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests
elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
The Bulletin identifies three things that must be true for a property to be significant under Criterion A:
1. The property has an association with an event or trend within a historic context; AND
2. The event or trend is important within that context; AND
3. The property’s association to the trend is important.2
The findings in the STOA state that the property is associated with the trend of early multi-family
residential development, and early multi-family residential development is established as an
important trend in the Citywide Historic Context Statement (HCS).3 This satisfies the first two things
that must be true per the guidance; however, the STOA provides no information to demonstrate that
1 “21ENT-0067 (1665 Appian Way) Statement of Official Action (STOA), Landmark Designation,” accessed June 2022, https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=12945&MeetingID=1314, 1-2.
2 Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton, eds., How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (US Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources:1997), 12, accessed June 2022, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.
3 The HCS was adopted by the Commission in 2018 as part of the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) update and serves as
a framework for the identification and evaluation of potential historical resources in the City of Santa Monica.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
22 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1665 Appian Way has an important association with the trend of early multi-family residential
development.
As explained in the Bulletin:
Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify
under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as
well. For example, a building historically in commercial use must be shown to have been
significant in commercial history.4
All properties that existed at a certain time or place are associated with historic trends. This does not
mean they all rise to a level of historic significance. The importance of the property’s association with
an important trend is the necessary distinction between a property that is old versus a property that is
historic.
GPA’s research and review of other analyses did not reveal evidence to suggest that the subject
property was especially unique, influential, or significant in multi-family residential history. This is
supported by contextual information found in the HCS.
The subject property is located in Seaside Terrace, a subdivision that was established in 1909 near
the recently completed Municipal Pier. Construction of apartment houses was encouraged in Seaside
Terrace, which was marketed as an “investment” or opportunity to make “quick profit.”5 By June of
1911, development in Seaside Terrace was well underway and consisted of “large apartment houses,
hotels, and [the developer] Schader’s impressive residence.”6 The HCS describes this development
as consisting of elaborate apartment buildings with balconies overlooking the ocean.7
It was when this development trend was well underway, in 1914, that the subject building, a fourplex,
was constructed for use as a residence and included three additional rental units ostensibly to
generate income. The subject property does not appear to have an important association with the
trend of early multi-family residential development in Santa Monica. Rather, it appears to be a modest,
multi-unit building that was constructed as part of a continuation of an established trend, in a location
marketed for its income-producing potential. As such, following the industry-standard guidance
provided in the Bulletin (above), it would not be considered significant under Criterion A/1 on the basis
of this association alone.
National Park Service Guidance Regarding Comparative Analysis
The Bulletin advises that conducting a comparative analysis is essential when evaluating a property
for historic significance. A property’s potential significance must be objectively measured against
other similar properties in order to maintain an accurate perspective within a historic context.8 For
example, if the perspective is too narrow, the perceived importance of a property may be outsized and
sway conclusions about its significance.
4 Ibid., emphasis added.
5 Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and Historic Resources Group (HRG), City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update
and Historic Context Statement (City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department: March 2018), 96. 6 Ibid., 95.
7 Ibid., 140
8 Andrus and Shrimpton, 9.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
23 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
The findings in the STOA under other designation criteria concede that the subject property “does not
read as a particularly strong example of any particular multi-family property type identified in the
[HCS]” and “does not possess any singular feature or singular characteristic that stands out as
memorable or noteworthy.”9 In doing so, the finding under Criterion 1 relies heavily on idea that the
subject property’s association to early multi-family residential development is made more notable by
its rarity:
…the subject property is on account of its rarity: specifically, it is one of but only a few
examples of early (pre-1920) purpose-built multi-family residential development in
Santa Monica that remains extant and retains sufficient integrity to convey its
association with key patterns of residential development and economic history. It is
certainly not the only remaining example of a pre-1920 multi-family dwelling - the
locally designated Purser Apartments (1659 Ocean Front Walk, 1913) sits across the
street and conveys many of the same characteristics - but the subject property is
among an already meager population of pre-1920, purpose-built multi-family
resources that has diminished even more over time, as similar properties have either
been demolished to make way for new development or have been altered to the extent
to which they no longer retain sufficient integrity for listing. Though it has experienced
some alterations, the subject property retains integrity from its original construction
date.10
As a measure of rarity, the STOA compares the number of remaining pre-1920 multi-family
properties—including the subject property—against the total number of potentially eligible properties
in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), as well as the total number of parcels within the city
as a whole:
Rarity is corroborated by data culled from the 2018 HRI. Including the subject property,
only eleven examples of pre-1920 multi-family properties were identified in the HRI as
eligible for listing. This figure is very meager when compared against the total number
of eligible resources identified in the HRI (875) and the total number of parcels within
the City of Santa Monica (approximately 23,000).11
However, this comparison includes a large number of properties irrelevant to the historic context being
considered. A review of publicly available City of Santa Monica parcel data indicates that of the
approximately 23,000 parcels in the city, nearly 19,500 are occupied by other building types (single-
family residential, commercial, industrial, etc.); this leaves around 4,000 remaining properties that
are occupied by multi-family residential buildings. Of these, approximately 150 were constructed
between 1907—the year the first apartment building was identified in city directories, per the HCS12—
and 1919.13
9 STOA, 2-4.
10 Ibid., 1-2.
11 Ibid., 2.
12 ARG and HRG, 107.
13 City of Santa Monica GIS Open Data Portal, “Parcels Public,” accessed June 2022, https://arcg.is/1CvPO10.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
24 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
While eleven examples of pre-1920 multi-family properties identified in the HRI seems very few when
considered among the 23,000 total properties in the city, the comparison becomes decidedly less
extreme among the 150 similar properties in the city.
Figure 1: Visualization of comparative analysis of potentially eligible multi-family properties in the HRI against
all properties, all multi-family properties, and all multi-family properties constructed between 1907 and 1920.
In their analysis for the Staff Report of this appeal, Planning Staff point out that the narrowed
geographic area (Seaside and Vicente Terraces) and typology (pre-1920 purpose-built multi-family
residential housing) also contribute to the perceived rarity of the subject property. Staff analysis
included a review of historic photographs of the Seaside and Vicente Terrace areas that did not reveal
a substantial number of buildings similar to the subject property, contrary to the finding in the STOA
that suggests it is a rare remaining example of something that was once prevalent. Planning Staff also
point out the flexibility of land uses during this period, (e.g., single-family houses that were remodeled
for use as multi-family, and vice-versa) questioning the relevance of the qualifying term “purpose-
built” that further reduces the pool of comparable properties.14
Following the guidance for comparative analysis in the Bulletin, Planning Staff describe several nearby
examples of intact multi-family properties from the period that are more emblematic of the multi-
family property type. Notably, the Landmark-designated Purser Apartments, (1659 Ocean Front Walk,
constructed 1913) are located and closer to the beach than the subject property and pre-date it by
one year. Other examples provided include the 4th Street Corner Historic District, the Bay Street
Cluster, and the 11th Street Historic District.15
For the reasons discussed above, it is GPA’s professional opinion that the finding recorded in the STOA
relied heavily on an inaccurate perception of rarity to lend significance under Criterion 1. Otherwise,
there is no information presented to suggest that the subject property has an important association
with the history of early multi-family residential development, which would constitute historic
significance within this context per federal guidance. When viewed with an appropriate perspective,
the subject property does not seem especially rare, particularly when there are examples more
emblematic of this period of history and property type like the Purser Apartments.
14 “Staff Report: Appeal of Landmarks Commission to Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark,” accessed June
2022, https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=37575&MeetingID=1314.
15 Ibid.
Item 6.A 06/14/22
25 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
As such, GPA supports Planning Staff’s recommendation that City Council approve the appeal and
deny designation of 1665 Appian Way.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Sincerely,
Amanda Duane
Senior Architectural Historian
GPA Consulting
amanda@gpaconsulting-us.com
Cc: Ralph Mechur, Michael Rahimi
Item 6.A 06/14/22
26 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Wise <kwise2@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Agenda Items 6A. and 6B
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council:
I write regarding Agenda Items 6A. and 6B, I urge you to please follow staff recommendations to repealing two recent
landmark designations. Specifically
Agenda Item 6A. Follow staff recommendations to:
1. Approve Appeal 21ENT‐0253, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to designate the property
located at 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark; and
2. Deny Designation Application 21ENT‐0067 to designate the property located at 1665 Appian Way as a
Landmark or Structure of Merit.
Agenda Item 6B. Follow staff recommendations to:
1. Approve Appeal 22ENT‐0015, appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to designate the property
located at 631 Colorado Avenue as a City Landmark; and
2. Deny Designation Application 21ENT‐0125 to designate the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue as a
Landmark or Structure of Merit.
It is not clear that either of these buildings fits national standard criteria for landmark status.
As we work towards the Santa Monica of the future, I believe that we should build wider and more inclusive
conversations about the criteria for what gets preserved and why, as well as how limiting that should be for what can be
done. Preservation of some buildings is critical, and it is not the only way to commemorate or to learn from history.
Documentation, mitigation and interpretation are more effective and appropriate in some cases, and we need to build a
more coherent and transparent set of criteria and process for decision making.
Thank you very much. Sincerely
Karen Wise, Ph.D.
Santa Monica
Item 6.A 06/14/22
27 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
19203.000 - 298458.2
June 14, 2022
Sent Electronically
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Email: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
RE: Agenda Item 6A, Designate 1665 Appian Way as a City
Landmark
Dear City Council members:
On behalf of the Los Angeles Conservancy, I am writing in support of
designating 1665 Appian Way as a City Landmark.
The property is an increasingly rare testament to the Santa Monica’s turn-
of-the-century beach culture. Its history is layered: while the nomination is
for the building’s significance as an early vernacular multifamily beachfront
property, it also addresses the racist actions of the original owner. The
designation is an opportunity to protect a threatened resource and to tell a
full history that acknowledges the racist development practices that shaped
Santa Monica.
The assessment from ARG demonstrates that this property qualifies for
designation under Criterion 1. The property “exemplifies, symbolizes, or
manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or
architectural history of the City” as an early example of the beachfront
experience that drew tourist and residents alike in droves to Santa Monica.
Constructed in 1914, 1665 Appian Way was part of a wave of multifamily
development in Seaside Terrace in the 1910s that reflected the region’s
culture of leisure and recreation for tourists and residents alike. Where once
there were many of these multifamily developments, this vernacular
building is a rare, and increasingly threatened, type of resource that is
worthy of protection.
The landmark designation recognizes the significant age and typology of the
property. Both the assessment and staff report agree that it does not condone
the racist actions of its original owner John Stotler. Nor does the nomination
Item 6.A 06/14/22
28 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))
19203.000 - 298458.2
eschew Stotler's activities to prevent the construction of an African American bathhouse. It crucial
to rigorously examine the role of racism in our monuments. The development of Santa Monica
cannot be separated from individuals like Stotler, who wielded their resources and City policy to
limit the opportunities of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Telling the full history of
properties like 1665 Appian Way is part of the work to acknowledge the complexity of Santa
Monica’s history and address the legacy of racism in the built environment.
In conclusion, we believe the property is worthy of designation because:
• It tells the story of the economic and development activity that made Santa Monica a
destination for leisure and recreation in the 1910s
• It represents a rare example of the multifamily residential development of this period. Few
such examples remain today.
• It works to tell a full story that addresses, but does not commemorate, the role of racist
development in policy and practice.
We strongly encourage the City Council to uphold the Landmarks Commission decision and
designate 1665 Appian Way a City Landmark. Thank you for your consideration.
About the Los Angeles Conservancy:
The Los Angeles Conservancy is the largest local historic preservation organization in the United
States, with nearly 5,000 members throughout the Los Angeles area. Established in 1978, the
Conservancy works to preserve and revitalize the significant architectural and cultural heritage of
Los Angeles County through advocacy and education.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 430-4203 or afine@laconservancy.org should you
have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Adrian Scott Fine
Senior Director of Advocacy
Item 6.A 06/14/22
29 of 29 Item 6.A 06/14/22
6.A.i
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Written Comments (4940 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of 1665 Appian Way (90 mins))