Santa Monica City Council
June 14, 2022

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

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

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 asthe 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-halfand 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 bungalowtype 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 MonicaOcean 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-oceanavenue-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-4XMSADbPdQoaFU&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-hillsthen-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 publicright-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 singlefamily 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 oneand 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 multifamily 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, multifamily 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 singlefamily 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 multifamily 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 multifamily 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 multifamily 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 alreadymeager 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
[email protected]
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 incomeproducing 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 singlefamily 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 leisureoriented 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.

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 alreadymeager 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 Gensermade 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 21ENT0112. 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 of10 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 multifamily 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, 4 th 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 • [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 multifamily 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 MacdonaldWright 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
[email protected]
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

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 <[email protected]>
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 “doublebungalow”) 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 (singlefamily 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 “purposebuilt” 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 multifamily 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
[email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
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 turnof-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 [email protected] 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)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item: 6.B
1 of 24
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Determination by Landmarks Commission to Designate 631 Colorado Avenue as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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.

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 March 19, 2021, 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc., the owner of the property at 631 Colorado Avenue, filed a demolition permit application. On May 20, 2021, Nina Fresco, on behalf of the Santa Monica Conservancy, submitted historic resource designation application 21ENT-0125 to nominate the property at 631 Colorado Avenue as either a Landmark or a Structure of Merit, with a revised application submitted on January 9, 2022. The designation application includes information to support designating the property as a Landmark based on Landmark designation criteria #1 and #4 as listed in Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A). Staff contracted with GPA Consulting Group (“GPA”) to prepare a landmarks assessment report for the property. GPA’s report found that the property does not appear to meet the criteria necessary to designate the property as a Santa Monica Landmark pursuant to SMMC Section

6.B
Packet Pg. 1403
2 of 24

9.56.100(A) or as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit pursuant to SMMC Section

9.56.080.

On January 10, 2022, in accordance with Interim Zoning Ordinance 2643 (“IZO”) establishing interim demolition review procedures, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing 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): “It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City” as a pioneer of the industrial commercial phase of development in downtown, and representative of the City’s evolution from the 1930s to the present. Under the IZO, 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 January 20, 2022, 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc. filed a timely appeal (Appeal 22ENT0015) of the Landmarks Commission’s decision. The appellant’s statement is attached and is further discussed in this report. Based on the findings outlined in the GPA report, evidence received prior to and during the Commission’s public hearing on January 10, 2022, and review of the appeal statement, staff recommends that the property be determined as ineligible as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

Background
Historic Resource Designation Application
The applicant for the designation application submitted information to support designating the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue as a City Landmark. The application asserts that the property meets SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(1) as an early example of industrial development in the downtown area and the first “beer outlet” in the city. The application further contends that the site is eligible because buildings that existed before the current development, but have since been demolished completely, were associated with Etta Vena Moxley, a prominent African American community member and activist, beginning in the early 1900s. Finally, the application states that the property is also eligible for Landmark designation under SMMC Section

6.B
Packet Pg. 1404
3 of 24

9.56.100(A)(4) due to the use of Groutlock brick, a technical innovation that occurred after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933, and it’s Streamline Moderne/Art Deco styling.

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 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

6.B
Packet Pg. 1405
4 of 24
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 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.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1406
5 of 24
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 initiates 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.

Discussion
Property Information and Architectural Description
The property at 631 Colorado Avenue is located on a corner parcel bound by Colorado Avenue to the south, 7th Street to the east, a separate parcel to the north, and 6th Court alleyway to the west. The parcel contains two buildings, the Main Building located on the eastern side of the parcel and the Auxiliary Building located in the western corner.

The property features limited landscaped areas with mature trees and hedges planted

6.B
Packet Pg. 1407
6 of 24
directly along the Colorado Avenue property line and around the main entrance of the Main Building and Auxiliary Building for added privacy. The remainder of the parcel is covered in asphalt paving that has been divided into parking spaces which are not visible from the public-right-of way due to the mature landscaping and modern fence with Art Deco-inspired piers and wrought iron posts that runs along Colorado Avenue.

Figure 1: Main Building
The Main Building was built in 1937 on the corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street as an industrial vernacular warehouse with Streamline Moderne influences. It is rectangular in plan with its shorter elevation facing Colorado Avenue. The building is one story in height with a two-story addition and barrel truss roof partially obscured by a raised parapet. The building is rectilinear and primarily of brick construction with reinforced concrete piers and divided lite steel windows. While the original brick largely remains, it has been sandblasted twice, and the grout has been poorly repointed, significantly reducing the integrity of workmanship. The building is largely vernacular with minimal adornment related to the Streamline Moderne architectural style; the GPA

6.B
Packet Pg. 1408
7 of 24
analysis finds the property is also influenced by the Art Deco style but there does not appear to be sufficient stylistic influence to identify it as such.

The second-story addition runs the entire length of the north elevation. The north elevation abuts the neighboring property and is not fully visible. The west elevation of the Main Building facing the interior of the property features a projecting one-story addition that was completed c. 1980. The top of the addition is a flat roof deck surrounded by a metal railing. The second-story addition opens onto the roof deck.

Overall, the building appears to be in good condition.

Figure 2: 631 Colorado Avenue
As Viewed from Colorado As Viewed from 7th Street
Auxiliary Building
The Auxiliary Building was originally constructed in 1941 as a loading canopy for the Aztec Brewing Company’s operations. It is a one-story building that is rectangular in plan with a flat, composition roof. Overall, this modified Auxiliary Building appears to be in good condition.

Historic Context
Prior to the construction of 631 Colorado Avenue, the subject property contained four residential cottages and two outbuildings. The City of Santa Monica Designation Application for the subject property notes that Etta Moxley lived in one of the four cottages. Moxley was a prominent African American Santa Monica resident who was

6.B
Packet Pg. 1409
8 of 24
heavily involved in various organizations, clubs, and philanthropic endeavors for the betterment of the African American community throughout her lifetime.

Black settlement in Santa Monica generally followed Los Angeles County-wide trends, including the early establishment of community institutions, residential segregation based on discriminatory practices, and the impacts of the civil rights movement. In the past, African Americans have represented the largest of the ethnic minorities residing in Santa Monica, and the community has a rich history and deeply entrenched roots within the City. The construction of the Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10) and the development of the Civic Center all but decimated the postwar African American community, and therefore many resources relating to this theme are no longer extant.

The majority of the extant resources related to this theme are found in the Pico and Ocean Park neighborhoods of the city.

The displacement and removal of African American communities is not unique to Santa Monica and was a pervasive practice throughout the United States with long-lasting and devastating consequences. This property appears to have been sold by the Moxley family and purchased by the Aztec Brewing Company in 1937 for the construction of a 50 by 100-foot brick building, the main building currently occupying the site. None of the buildings or improvements from the time that the Moxley family owned the property remain. Since the existing buildings were constructed after the demolition of the residential cottages, Etta Moxley does not have any association with the subject property at this time. In accordance with national standards, a property can be designated for the existing structures, and not for structures that no longer exist.

Historic preservation planning is just one of many tools for recognizing social, cultural, and historical value. Other strategies to employ may include historical markers, mapping programs, oral history projects, public art, events, walking tours, and close collaboration with advocacy groups. The Belmar History + Art Project is one example of commemoration of the African American Community in recognition of the largely black neighborhood that was razed through eminent domain in the 1950s in order to make way for the Civic Auditorium and Civic Center Campus.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1410
9 of 24
In the 1920s, Santa Monica’s population jumped from 15,000 to 37,000, the largest increase in the city’s history. Santa Monica had been a distinctly non-industrial city until the 1930s. The aviation industry played a significant role in the growth and development of Santa Monica in the early 20th century. A 1924 map of the Los Angeles area showed no industries in Santa Monica with more than twenty-five employees.

However, beginning in the 1920s, aircraft companies established or relocated operations to Southern California, which offered expanses of open, undeveloped land, favorable climatic conditions, and adequate infrastructure, including water, power, and transportation systems to support development of factories, testing facilities, and new housing for a rapidly expanding workforce. Though most resources from this period no longer exist, Santa Monica’s industrial development during this period provided the foundation for rampant expansion during and after World War II.

In addition to industrial buildings associated with the aviation industry, other light industrial uses from the period can be found in the industrially zoned portions of the city.

These buildings are typically vernacular in style, and early factory buildings may include daylight or controlled-condition factory buildings, warehouse buildings, and other types that support light industrial uses. While there are not many similar industrial buildings in the downtown area, there are many similar buildings remaining in other areas of the city where industrial buildings have been more prevalent throughout the City’s history.

Property History
The property located at 631 Colorado Avenue is currently occupied by the main, industrial warehouse (Main Building, for the purposes of this report) on the eastern portion of the parcel and an auxiliary building (Auxiliary Building, for the purposes of this report) to the west, which were built in 1937 and 1941, respectively. The property originally featured a Wine Storage Building, a wood framed platform, and a wooden addition to the Main Building’s west elevation, forming a U-shaped configuration with open space along Colorado Avenue.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1411
10 of 24
Figure 3: 1950 Sanborn Map, 631 Colorado Avenue.

The building permit for the Main Building was issued to the “A.B.C. Distribution Co.” (Aztec Brewing Company) in 1937 for the construction of a 50 by 100-foot brick building with composition roofing. Research did not reveal an architect, engineer, or builder. In 1941, the building permit for what is now the Auxiliary Building, located on the corner of Colorado Avenue and a rear alleyway, was issued for the construction of a 25 by 42- foot loading canopy with composition roofing. The maps also indicate that a small wooden platform with composite roofing was present on the fifth bay of the west elevation of the Main Building. In 1947, the canopy that is now the Auxiliary Building was altered to include an interior loading platform and exterior doors.

From 1955-1956, the Aerophysics Development Corporation owned the property and during their ownership, they sandblasted both buildings and made minor interior tenant improvements that did not alter the exterior of either building or the parcel. The following owner, Keystone Body Works, owned the property from 1957-1994. During their ownership, the company added a rear one-story addition to the Main Building along the alleyway in 1957, a free-standing canopy and signage in 1958, a new privacy wall made

6.B
Packet Pg. 1412
11 of 24
of concrete block along the west elevation of the property against the alleyway in 1959 and removed the small wooden platform from the fifth bay of the Main Building sometime between 1950-1963. After 1963, a one-story, scored-stucco clad addition with fenestration consisting of large divided lite windows was added to the rear of the west elevation of the Auxiliary Building.

The addition and canopy on the Main Building were removed in 1996 during a tenant improvement project by new owners, Bandit Films. In 1997, both buildings were sandblasted and in 1998, a 730-square foot, second-story addition was completed along the entire north elevation of the Main Building as well as a contemporary privacy fence along Colorado Avenue and the rear alleyway. In 2002, the current owner of the property, Bay Films (500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.), added landscaping to the north of the main entrance on the Main Building’s west elevation and along both sides of the fence along Colorado Avenue.

Reinforced Brick Masonry
Reinforced brick masonry (RBM) refers to brick masonry construction reinforced with steel to improve the brick’s tensile strength. Different RBM techniques have been utilized for hundreds of years, but some of the most significant advancements in the United States occurred after the Long Beach Earthquake in 1933. Safer and more resilient construction techniques were researched, developed, and later codified in response to the dangers of unreinforced masonry buildings.

As a part of this research and experimentation, masonry units with new, specialized shapes were developed and used for construction. Two of those shapes included Groutlock and Port Costa Key bricks. Groutlock bricks were irregularly shaped with beveled edges on one side which, when stacked, would allow space for both horizontal and vertical reinforcements. Port Costa Key bricks featured two centralized notches along the stretcher. Both types of brick were advertised and used throughout Southern California for institutional and commercial construction following the 1933 earthquake.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1413
12 of 24
Research indicates that the use of these brick shapes fell out of favor in the 1950s when research demonstrated that a structurally sound building depended not only the brick, but the type of mortar used, and proper workmanship and construction techniques. That is, there was no need for these special shaped bricks so long as a skilled bricklayer completed the construction.

While the 1937 building permit identifies the Main Building as being built with Groutlock bricks, no visible Groutlock bricks were observed during a physical assessment of the property; however, a few examples of what appear to be notched Port Costa Key bricks were observed although it does not appear to have been used for the whole of the building. Nevertheless, as the use of this type of brick quickly fell out of favor, this technique was not particularly influential in Santa Monica or throughout the region.

Landmarks Commission Action
On January 10, 2022, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing to discuss the property’s potential eligibility as a Landmark or Structure of Merit. The Commission was provided with the designation application materials, the GPA landmark assessment report and staff’s analysis in the staff report. The property owner also engaged a consultant, ESA, to prepare an independent historic assessment and submitted that assessment as a part of the record for consideration by the Landmarks Commission.

The assessment concluded that the property does not satisfy the criterion findings as a City Landmark, or Structure of Merit. The ESA report and the appellant’s demolition permit application and appeal application materials are provided 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 4-2 to designate the primary building at the corner of 7th St and Colorado Avenue and the entire property as a City Landmark and associated Landmark Parcel. The auxiliary building on the western end of the property was not included in the designation. The Commission designated the Landmark and Landmark Parcel based on criteria #1 and #4 pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). The Commission’s findings included:

6.B
Packet Pg. 1414
13 of 24
• Criterion #1: The building exemplifies, symbolizes or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City in that it was the first light industrial commercial building in the south-east portion of Santa Monica’s downtown; that the A.B.C. Distributing Company building was the only building in downtown with characteristics of the Art Deco/Streamline Moderne style, and for its association with Etta Moxley, a dedicated leader in the African American Women’s Club movement who lived on the property prior to its current development.
• Criterion #4: The building embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study in its use of Groutlock, a technique developed to respond to the long Beach earthquake, and for its characteristics of the Art Deco style rare in commercial industrial buildings in the City.

The Landmarks Commission designated the structure as a City Landmark a process that was a result of a demolition permit application. In accordance with the IZO, a building does not merit designation as a Structure of Merit if the building has been designated as a City Landmark. 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. The Commission focused their discussion on the artfulness of the corner building’s primary façade, the use of Groutlock brick and its association with Etta Moxley in the context of criteria for designation as a City Landmark, and, although no formal vote was taken because none was necessary under the IZO, determined that it did not appear that the property satisfied any of the criteria for a Structure of Merit.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1415
14 of 24
The January 10, 2022 Landmarks Commission staff report and approved meeting minutes, and the approved Statement of Official Action are attached. The audio recording of the January 10 2022 meeting is posted on the City’s webpage:
https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Boards-Commissions/LandmarksCommission/.

Appeal
The appellant filed a timely appeal on January 20, 2022. The appellant states that the Landmarks Commission relied on faulty information and did not apply the criteria correctly for this designation, and that the findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The appeal also noted that the staff report, the City’s preservation consultant, and the appellant’s preservation consultant all recommended denial of the property as a designated Landmark.

Staff has analyzed the application materials, the GPA consultant assessment and considered all the testimony and Landmarks Commission discussion and designation.

Staff remains in agreement with GPA that the property does not appear eligible for designation. The property, while one of the first industrial buildings built in this area of Downtown, does not appear to be a significant aspect of the larger trend of industrial development in Downtown or in Santa Monica as a whole. There have also been significant changes to the property over time and currently it is not immediately recognizable as an industrial building.

Appeal Analysis

1. Appellant states that the staff report, the City’s historic preservation consultant report (GPA), and the property owner’s historic preservation consultant report (ESA) finds that the property does not meet the City’s criteria for designation as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit.

The appellant is correct that City Staff and the historic preservation professionals who reviewed the property all agreed that the findings for both the Landmark and Structure

6.B
Packet Pg. 1416
15 of 24
of Merit designations could not be met. The reports noted that there are many other similar buildings in the city and throughout the region, the architectural ornament is not significant or special, that the association with the important personage of Etta Moxley could not be made as no trace of the residential buildings she was associated with currently exist, and there is not sufficient evidence that Groutblock was used or that it was particularly influential.

2. The appeal states that the Landmarks Commission based their decision on faulty information and that the decision is not based on substantial evidence.

As discussed, staff found that there was not sufficient evidence to determine whether or not Groutlock brick was used. While the building permit included reference to Groutblock, a visual inspection revealed the use of some Port Costa Key bricks. Both types of bricks would not have been used in the same building. Additionally, this type of brick construction was not particularly influential in subsequent building. Further, staff has found that there is no meaningful association with Etta Moxley as there is no trace of the buildings she owned or lived in. And finally, under the Landmarks Ordinance, only “improvements” may be designated as either Landmarks or Structure of Merit. For purposes of the Landmarks Ordinance, structures that have been completely demolished, do not appear to meet the definition of “improvement”. Therefore, it does not appear that the Landmarks Ordinance, grants authority to designate buildings that have been completely demolished as either a Landmark or a Structure of Merit. As a practical matter, designating the existing buildings may be confusing as the structures have no connection to Etta Moxley’s residence or contributions to the City.

Eligibility as Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation and Proposed Findings The Interim Zoning Ordinance that governs the demolition permit review process 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.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1417
16 of 24
The City hired GPA Consulting to prepare a landmark assessment report. Based on the findings as provided in the Landmark Assessment Report, the consultant finds and staff agrees that the property does not appear eligible as a Landmark or Structure of Merit under the City of Santa Monica Landmark or Structure of Merit criteria, as outlined below. Based on a thorough analysis of all this information, the City’s past practice, and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, staff respectfully disagrees with the Landmarks Commission conclusion and recommends the City Council uphold the appeal and deny the designation. The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:

Criterion 1
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The property does not exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history or development of Santa Monica.

The existing buildings were constructed in what was once an African American residential neighborhood, replacing four residential cottages and two outbuildings. As such, the residential and outbuildings related to the cultural and social history of this area during that period no longer exist, and the buildings located at the subject property do not share the same association.

The subject property is one of the first industrial buildings built in this specific southeast area of downtown but does not appear to be a significant aspect of the larger trend of industrial development in Downtown or Santa Monica as a whole. Industrial buildings were being built throughout the City in the pre-war era, particularly in the nearby Pico neighborhood, in large groupings around and adjacent to transportation outlets.

Furthermore, the property’s original use as a distributor for the Aztec Brewing Company does not exemplify the economic development patterns Santa Monica was experiencing at this time. As mentioned above, Santa Monica’s aviation industry was the primary source of industrial development prior to World War II. The City of Santa Monica was not known for its alcohol distribution nor is this building the headquarters or a notable

6.B
Packet Pg. 1418
17 of 24
location for the Aztec Brewing Company’s operations, which included various distribution warehouses throughout the Southwest. Additionally, the two existing buildings on the parcel were built as part of a collection of three buildings with a woodframed platform that all served a specific purpose in the distribution of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the loss of the third building and rear platform, as well as the infill of the Auxiliary Building that was originally a loading canopy and addition of fencing along Colorado Avenue, the site no longer reads as an alcohol distribution center.

Constructed in the industrial vernacular style, the Main Building lacks the primary character defining features that would qualify it as a light industrial building, such as loading docks and doors, and oversized bays of continuous industrial steel sash on two or more façades. Both buildings appear to be built in the vernacular style with minimal Streamline Modern styling, and neither building on the site is a notable example of the Streamline Moderne style, and there is no evidence to suggest this building was influential to the architectural development of the city.

Therefore, it does not appear that the property at 631 Colorado satisfies Criterion 1.

Criterion 2
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

Both buildings located at 631 Colorado Avenue were constructed for industrial, utilitarian purposes. Thousands of industrial buildings were constructed throughout Southern California during pre- and post-World War II building booms. As such, the buildings do not possess special aesthetic or artistic interest or value, and it does not appear that they satisfy Criterion 2.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1419
18 of 24
Criterion 3
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

The existing buildings were constructed in what was once an African American neighborhood, replacing four residential cottages and two outbuildings. The City of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Application for the subject property notes that Etta Moxley, a prominent figure in the African American community, lived in one of the four residential cottages. Since the residential and outbuildings related to this cultural and social history are no longer extant, the existing buildings on the property do not share the same association.

The Aztec Brewing Company obtained the permits for both buildings currently on site.

Following the end of Prohibition, the Aztec Brewing Company had various distribution warehouses throughout the Southwest. Research did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the Aztec Brewing Company was owned or operated by any historic personages. Research did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the remaining businesses associated with the site were owned or operated by historically significant individuals. Research also did not reveal any evidence of association with an important historic event.

Therefore, neither building at 631 Colorado Avenue appears to satisfy Criterion 3.

Criterion 4
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

Both buildings located at 631 Colorado Avenue are examples of industrial vernacular construction in the years prior and during World War II. Industrial buildings constructed during this time featured limited exterior details as they were not intended to attract pedestrians for commercial use and were utilitarian by nature. While the modest use of

6.B
Packet Pg. 1420
19 of 24
Streamline Moderne elements is visible on both buildings, the few features alone do not make these buildings notable examples of the Streamline Moderne style. The construction and features of both structures are not notable in any way and have been modified over time. Lastly, as indicated on 1950 Sanborn Maps around Santa Monica’s industrial cores, such as along rail lines or present-day freeways, brick industrial buildings were not a rarity for the City.

On the original permit for the Main Building, the construction material is indicated as Groutlock brick, a building material produced by the Simons Brick Company. However, a physical assessment of the site indicates that the brick is not an example of Groutlock, but rather another type of grouted masonry, described as Port Costa Key. A few scattered examples of what appear to be the Port Costa Key bricks are visible and have stepped notching at the top of the brick. Although this building material is visible, it was not used for the entire building, or if it was, only a few examples of this type of brick are visible from the exterior. As discussed above, many solutions for increasing the earthquake resistance of masonry buildings were explored in the aftermath of the Long Beach Earthquake, including experimentation with new masonry shapes. These shapes included the Groutlock brick, which had a diagonal or beveled edge, and the Port Costa Key brick, which had interlocking “notches.” However, subsequent engineering studies in the decades after World War II revealed that a special masonry shape was not necessary when good workmanship and an appropriate mortar mix was employed, and the new masonry shapes ostensibly fell out of use. The Groutlock and Port Costa Key bricks were a short-lived experiment in construction technology following the Long Beach earthquake. Research did not indicate that they were ever widely used or influential to later developments in construction technology. As such, it does not appear that the use of these brick shapes was an important building technique.

Therefore, neither building at 631 Colorado Avenue appears to satisfy Criterion 4.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1421
20 of 24
Criterion 5
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

Research into the construction history of 631 Colorado Avenue did not reveal the name of the architect or the builder for the Main Building. The architect for the Auxiliary Building was identified on the 1941 building permit as Frederic Barienbrock. Frederick Barienbrock was a local architect that worked in Santa Monica for 50 years. Barienbrock was responsible for the designs of 1725 Main Street, 827 6th Street, 829 6th Street, and the 1951 addition to the Santa Monica Courthouse and County Building wing of the Santa Monica Civic Center. While Barienbrock appears to have been a successful local architect, his work is not particularly noteworthy and he is not an important architectural figure in the history of the city or the region. Additionally, the utilitarian canopy would not be a notable example of his work, and it no longer conveys its original design intent due to modifications on all elevations.

Therefore, the property at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to satisfy Criterion 5.

Criterion 6
SMMC 9.56.100(a)(6). It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The property located at 631 Colorado Avenue is located in a portion of Santa Monica’s original township that is now referred to as the Downtown neighborhood. The property is surrounded by residential, commercial, and industrial properties ranging from one to four stories in height. The subject property is an unremarkable infill site that, although part of the original township, does not appear to be an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood or City.

Therefore, the property at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to satisfy Criterion 6.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1422
21 of 24
Evaluation for Structure of Merit Designation
The City’s historic preservation consultant, GPA, recommends, and staff agrees, that 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 property at 631 Colorado Avenue was individually identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update and assigned a status code of 5S3, indicating that the property appeared to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica and being one of one of relatively few extant industrial buildings in this area from the pre‐World War II period. However, based on the analysis provided above, the property does not appear to merit designation.

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 property at 631 Colorado Avenue is over fifty years of age, but it is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. As discussed above, the buildings are industrial vernacular buildings with utilitarian purposes that are ubiquitous throughout Santa Monica’s industrial areas, such as the Pico neighborhood, and Southern California as a whole. Therefore, it does not appear that the property satisfies this criterion.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1423
22 of 24
(B)(2). The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.

The subject property represents the industrial vernacular style which is still represented in the City in large numbers. While the resource is one of the few remaining industrial buildings in the southeastern portion of the Downtown, it is not rare when considered with the larger inventory of buildings in the industrial areas of Santa Monica. Industrial development in this area was not as historically prevalent in Downtown as other areas in the city, such as the Pico neighborhood.

Further north on Colorado Avenue there are numerous extant examples of similarly scaled industrial development. Therefore, it does not appear that the property satisfies this criterion.
(B)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.

The subject property is not located within any previously identified potential historic district, and a historic district is unlikely to exist in the area surrounding 631 Colorado Avenue. The subject property is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and multi-family buildings of various styles, sizes, and construction dates. They are not visually or historically unified and do not form a significant or cohesive grouping. Therefore, it does not appear that the property satisfies 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).

6.B
Packet Pg. 1424
23 of 24
At its January 10, 2022 meeting, the Landmarks Commission designated the property commonly known as 631 Colorado 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-0125 and designate the property as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 631 Colorado Avenue as an associated Landmark Parcel.

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.

6.B
Packet Pg. 1425
24 of 24
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 22ENT-0015 (631 Colorado Ave) APPEAL Application (1) B. 631 Colorado Designation staff report
C. ColoradoAve631-Application amendment
D. Designation Application 631 Colorado
E. GPA Landmark Assessment Report
F. Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report
G. 631 Colorado Appeal Hearing Notice April 12
H. STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA
I. 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1)
J. Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) K. STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation
L. Written Comments

6.B
Packet Pg. 1426

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: 22ENT-0015 (631 Colorado Ave) APPEAL Application (1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue

6.B.a
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: 22ENT-0015 (631 Colorado Ave) APPEAL Application (1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue Landmark Commission
Report
DATE: January 10, 2022 6-A
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Stephanie Reich, Landmark Commission Secretary
SUBJECT: 631 Colorado Avenue, 21ENT-0125
Public Hearing to consider Landmark Designation Application 21ENT-0125 to determine whether the commercial property, in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit and, if designated as a Landmark, whether to designate an associated Landmark Parcel.

PROPERTY OWNER: 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.

APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The property owner filed a demolition permit application with the City of Santa Monica (City) on March 19, 2021. On May 20, 2021, Nina Fresco, on behalf of the Santa Monica Conservancy, submitted designation application 21ENT-0125 to nominate the property at 1665 Appian Way. The application included an assessment that found the property eligible under Criteria 1 as an early example of industrial development in the downtown area and the first “beer outlet” in the city, and under Criterion 3 for association with Etta Vena Moxley who was associated with the property prior to the current development extant on the site. The nomination application is included as Attachment B.

A Landmark Assessment report was prepared for the subject building by GPA Consulting Group (GPA) provided as Attachment C. Based on the findings as provided in the report, the consultant finds that the property does not appear eligible for designation under Santa

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 2 -
Monica Landmark criteria 9.56.100(A) and does not appear eligible for listing as a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria S.M.M.C 9.56.080.

Staff has analyzed the application materials and the GPA consultant assessment and agrees with GPA that the property does not appear eligible for designation. The property, while one of the first industrial buildings built in this area of Downtown, does not appear to be a significant aspect of the larger trend of industrial development in Downtown or in Santa Monica as a whole. There have also been significant changes to the property over time and currently it is not immediately recognizable as an industrial building.

The application also contends that the site is eligible because buildings that existed before the current development were associated with a prominent African American community member and activist, Etta Moxley, beginning in the early 1900s. While Etta Moxley appears to have been an important figure in the community, the property has no trace of the development present on the site when she was associated with it.

Finally, the application states that the property is significant due to the use groutlock brick, a technical innovation that occurred after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933. However, further inspection has indicated that groutlock brick does not appear to have been used, A different system, Porta Costa Key Bricks may have been, although a small sampling of those bricks is apparent throughout the property. Nevertheless, the bricks soon fell out of favor and were not influential to the construction practice in Santa Monica or the Southern California region more generally.

As the property does not appear to meet any of the required criteria, staff recommends the Commission deny the designation of the property at 631 Colorado Avenue as a Santa Monica Landmark or Structure of Merit.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 3 -
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The property was most recently identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update as appearing eligible for recognition as a as a Santa Monica Landmark. The inventory states:
“The property is significant for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica.

Constructed in 1937, it is one of relatively few extant industrial buildings in the area from the pre‐World War II period.”
However, the property had not been identified in any survey prior to the most recent one, even though the property is of an age that would have been reviewed in each of the City’s previous inventories.

The property is at the southwestern edge of Downtown.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 4 -

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.56.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment A.

ANALYSIS
Property Information and Architectural Description
The property at 631 Colorado Avenue is located
on a corner parcel bound by Colorado Avenue to
the south, 7th Street to the east, a separate
parcel to the north, and an alleyway to the west.

The parcel contains two buildings, the Main
Building located on the eastern side of the parcel
and the Auxiliary Building located in the western
corner. The property features limited landscaped
areas with mature trees and hedges planted
directly along the Colorado Avenue property line
and around the main entrance of the Main
Building and Auxiliary Building for added
privacy. The remainder of the parcel is covered
in asphalt paving that has been divided into
parking spaces which are not visible from the
public-right-of way due the mature landscaping and modern fence with Art Deco-inspired piers and wrought iron posts that runs along Colorado Avenue.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 5 -

Additional description and photos of the property is included in the GPA assessment.

Main Building
The Main Building was built in 1937 on the corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street as an industrial vernacular warehouse with Streamline Moderne influences. It is rectangular in plan with its shorter elevation facing Colorado Avenue. The building is one story in height with a two-story addition and barrel truss roof partially obscured by a raised parapet. The building is rectilinear and primarily of brick construction with reinforced concrete piers and divided lite steel windows. The building is largely vernacular with minimal adornment related to the Streamline Moderne architectural style (GPA finds the property also influenced by the Art Deco style but there does not appear to be evidence of this influence).

The second-story addition runs the entire length of the north elevation. The north elevation abuts the neighboring property and is not fully visible. The west elevation of the Main Building facing the interior of the property features a projecting one-story addition that was completed c. 1980. The top of the addition is a flat roof deck surrounded by a metal railing. The second-story addition opens onto the roof deck. Overall, the building appears to be in good condition.

Auxiliary Building
The Auxiliary Building was originally constructed in 1941 as a loading canopy for the Aztec Brewing Company’s operations. It is a one-story building that is rectangular in plan with a flat, composition roof. Overall, this modified Auxiliary Building appears to also be in good condition.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 6 -
Historic Context
Prior to the construction of 631 Colorado Avenue, the subject property contained four residential cottages and two outbuildings. The City of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Application for the subject property notes that Etta Moxley lived in one of the four cottages. Moxley was a prominent African American Santa Monica resident who was heavily involved in various organizations, clubs, and philanthropic endeavors for the betterment of the African American community throughout her lifetime.

Black settlement in Santa Monica generally followed Los Angeles County-wide trends, including the early establishment of community institutions, residential segregation based on discriminatory practices, and the impacts of the civil rights movement. In the past, African Americans have represented the largest of the ethnic minorities residing in Santa Monica, and the community has a rich history and deeply entrenched roots within the city.

The construction of the Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10) and the development of the Civic Center all but decimated the postwar African American community, and therefore many resources relating to this theme are no longer extant. The majority of the extant resources related to this theme are found in the Pico or Ocean Park neighborhoods of the city.

The displacement and removal of African American communities is not unique to Santa Monica and was a pervasive practice throughout the United States with long-lasting and devastating consequences. This property appears to have been sold by the Moxley family and purchased by the Aztec Brewing Company in 1937 for the construction of a 50 by 100-foot brick building, the main building currently occupying the site. None of the buildings or improvements from the time that the Moxley family owned the property remain extant. Since the existing buildings were constructed after the demolition of the residential cottages, Etta Moxley does not have any association with the subject property at this time.

Because the built environment only reflects certain aspects of the importance a community, space, or neighborhood may have, place-based historic designation

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 7 -
programs do not fully or accurately capture history that may be intangible or lost. Historic preservation planning is just one of many tools for recognizing social, cultural, and historical value. Other strategies to employ may include historical markers, mapping programs, oral history projects, public art, events, walking tours, and close collaboration with advocacy groups.

In the 1920s, Santa Monica’s population jumped from 15,000 to 37,000, the largest increase in the city’s history. Santa Monica had been a distinctly non-industrial city until the 1930s. The aviation industry played a significant role in the growth and development of Santa Monica in the early 20th century. A 1924 map of the Los Angeles area showed no industries in Santa Monica with more than twenty-five employees. However, beginning in the 1920s, aircraft companies established or relocated operations to Southern California, which offered expanses of open, undeveloped land, favorable climatic conditions, and adequate infrastructure, including water, power, and transportation systems to support development of factories, testing facilities, and new housing for a rapidly expanding workforce. Though most resources from this period are no longer extant, Santa Monica’s industrial development during this period provided the foundation for rampant expansion during and after World War II.

In addition to industrial buildings associated with the aviation industry, other light industrial uses from the period can be found in the industrially zoned portions of the city. These buildings are typically vernacular in style, and early factory buildings may include daylight or controlled-condition factory buildings, warehouse buildings, and other types that support light industrial uses. While there are not many similar industrial buildings in the downtown area, there are many similar buildings remaining in other areas of the city where industrial buildings have been more prevalent throughout the City’s history.

Property History
The property located at 631 Colorado Avenue is currently occupied by the main, industrial warehouse (Main Building, for the purposes of this report) on the eastern portion of the parcel and an auxiliary building (Auxiliary Building, for the purposes of this report) to the

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 8 -
west which were built in 1937 and 1941, respectively. The property originally featured a Wine Storage Building, a wood framed platform, and a wooden addition to the Main Building’s west elevation, forming a U-shaped configuration with open space along Colorado Avenue.
1950 Sanborn Map, 631 Colorado Avenue.

The building permit for the Main Building was issued to the “A.B.C Distribution Co.” (Aztec Brewing Company) in 1937 for the construction of a 50 by 100-foot brick building with composition roofing. Research did not reveal an architect, engineer, or builder. In 1941, the building permit for what is now the Auxiliary Building, located on the corner of Colorado Avenue and a rear alleyway, was issued for the construction of a 25 by 42-foot loading canopy with composition roofing. The maps also indicate that a small wooden platform with composite roofing was present on the fifth bay of the west elevation of the Main Building. In 1947, the canopy that is now the Auxiliary Building was altered to include an interior loading platform and exterior doors.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 9 -
From 1955-1956, the Aerophysics Development Corporation owned the property and during their ownership, they sandblasted both buildings and made minor interior tenant improvements that did not alter the exterior of either building or the parcel. The following owner, Keystone Body Works, owned the property from 1957-1994. During their ownership, the company added a rear one-story addition to the Main Building along the alleyway in 1957, a free-standing canopy and signage in 1958, a new privacy wall made of concrete block along the west elevation of the property against the alleyway in 1959 and removed the small wooden platform from the fifth bay of the Main Building sometime between 1950-1963. After 1963, a one-story, scored-stucco clad addition with fenestration consisting of large divided lite windows was added to the rear of the west elevation of the Auxiliary Building.

The addition and canopy on the Main Building were removed in 1996 during a tenant improvement project by new owners, Bandit Films. In 1997, both buildings were sandblasted and in 1998, a 730-square foot, second-story addition was completed along the entire north elevation of the Main Building as well as a contemporary privacy fence along Colorado Avenue and the rear alleyway. In 2002, the current owner of the property, Bay Films (500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.), added landscaping to the north of the main entrance on the Main Building’s west elevation and along both sides of the fence along Colorado Avenue.

Reinforced Brick Masonry
Reinforced brick masonry (RBM) refers to brick masonry construction reinforced with steel to improve the brick’s tensile strength. Different RBM techniques have been utilized for hundreds of years, but some of the most significant advancements in the United States occurred after the Long Beach Earthquake in 1933. Safer and more resilient construction techniques were researched, developed, and later codified in response to the dangers of unreinforced masonry buildings.

As a part of this research and experimentation, masonry units with new, specialized shapes were developed and used for construction. Two of those shapes included Groutlock and Port Costa Key bricks. Groutlock bricks were irregularly shaped with

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 10 -
beveled edges on one side which, when stacked, would allow space for both horizontal and vertical reinforcements. Port Costa Key bricks featured two centralized notches along the stretcher. Both types of brick were advertised and used throughout Southern California for institutional and commercial construction following the 1933 earthquake.

Research indicates that the use of these brick shapes fell out of favor in the 1950s when research demonstrated that a structurally sound building depended not only the brick, but the type of mortar used, and proper workmanship and construction techniques. That is, there was no need for these special shaped bricks so long as a skilled bricklayer completed the construction.

While the 1937 building permit identifies the Main Building as being built with Groutlock bricks, no visible Groutlock bricks were observed during a physical assessment of the property; however, a few examples of what appear to be notched Port Costa Key bricks were observed although it does not appear to have been used for the whole of the building. Nevertheless, as the use of this type of brick quickly fell out of favor, this technique was not particularly influential in Santa Monica or throughout the region.

Landmarks Ordinance/Findings for Landmark and Structure of Merit Designations The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building’s eligibility as a Landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. In order to be designated as a City Landmark, the Commission is required to find that the property meets one or more of these criteria.

Based on the findings as provided in the Landmark Assessment Report, the consultant finds and staff agrees that the property does not appear eligible as a Landmark or Structure of Merit under the City of Santa Monica Landmark or Structure of Merit criteria, as outlined below. The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:

Evaluation for Landmark Designation
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building’s eligibility as a Landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. In order to be designated as a

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 11 -
Landmark, the Commission 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.

The property does not exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history or development of Santa Monica.

The existing buildings were constructed in what was once an African American residential neighborhood, replacing four residential cottages and two outbuildings. As such, the residential and outbuildings related to the cultural and social history of this area during that period are no longer extant, and the existing buildings do not share the same association.

The subject property is one of the first industrial buildings built in this specific southeast area of downtown but does not appear to be a significant aspect of the larger trend of industrial development in Downtown or Santa Monica as a whole. Industrial buildings were being built throughout the City in the pre-war era, particularly in the nearby Pico neighborhood, in large groupings around and adjacent to transportation outlets.

Furthermore, the property’s original use as a distributor for the Aztec Brewing Company does not exemplify the economic development patterns Santa Monica was experiencing at this time. As mentioned above, Santa Monica’s aviation industry was the primary source of industrial development prior to World War II. The City of Santa Monica was not known for its alcohol distribution nor is this building the headquarters or a notable location for the Aztec Brewing Company’s operations, which included various distribution warehouses throughout the Southwest. Additionally, the two existing buildings on the parcel were built as part of a collection of three buildings with a wood-framed platform that all served a specific purpose in the distribution of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the loss of the third building and rear platform, as well as the infill of the Auxiliary Building that was originally a loading canopy and addition of fencing along Colorado Avenue, the site no longer reads as an alcohol distribution center.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 12 -
Constructed in the industrial vernacular style, the Main Building lacks the primary character defining features that would qualify it as a light industrial building, such as loading docks and doors, and oversized bays of continuous industrial steel sash on two or more façades. Both buildings appear to be built in the vernacular style with minimal Streamline Modern styling, and neither building on the site is a notable example of the Streamline Moderne style, and there is no evidence to suggest this building was influential to the architectural development of the city.

Therefore, the property at 631 Colorado does not appear significant under Criterion 1.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

Both buildings located at 631 Colorado Avenue were constructed for industrial, utilitarian purposes. Thousands of industrial buildings were constructed throughout Southern California during pre- and post-World War II building booms. As such, the buildings do not possess special aesthetic or artistic interest or value, and do not appear to be significant 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.

The existing buildings were constructed in what was once an African American neighborhood, replacing four residential cottages and two outbuildings. The City of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Application for the subject property notes that Etta Moxley, a prominent figure in the African American community, lived in one of the four residential cottages. Since the residential and outbuildings related to this cultural and social history are no longer extant, the existing buildings on the property do not share the same association.

The Aztec Brewing Company obtained the permits for both buildings currently on site.

Following the end of Prohibition, the Aztec Brewing Company had various distribution

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 13 -
warehouses throughout the Southwest. Research did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the Aztec Brewing Company was owned or operated by any historic personages.

Research did not reveal any evidence to suggest that the remaining businesses associated with the site were owned or operated by historically significant individuals.

Research also did not reveal any evidence of association with an important historic event.

Therefore, neither building at 631 Colorado Avenue appears to be significant 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.

Both buildings located at 631 Colorado Avenue are examples of industrial vernacular construction in the years prior and during World War II. Industrial buildings constructed during this time featured limited exterior details as they were not intended to attract pedestrians for commercial use and were utilitarian by nature. While the modest use of Streamline Moderne elements are visible on both buildings, the few features alone do not make these buildings notable examples of the Streamline Moderne style. The construction and features of both structures are not notable in any way and have been modified over time. Lastly, as indicated on 1950 Sanborn Maps around Santa Monica’s industrial cores, such as along rail lines or present-day freeways, brick industrial buildings were not a rarity for the City.

On the original permit for the Main Building, the construction material is indicated as Groutlock brick, a building material produced by the Simons Brick Company. However, a physical assessment of the site indicates that the brick is not an example of Groutlock, but rather another type of grouted masonry, described as Port Costa Key. A few scattered examples of what appear to be the Port Costa Key bricks are visible and have stepped notching at the top of the brick. Although this building material is visible, it was not used for the entire building, or if it was, only a few examples of this type of brick are visible from

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 14 -
the exterior. As discussed above, many solutions for increasing the earthquake resistance of masonry buildings were explored in the aftermath of the Long Beach Earthquake, including experimentation with new masonry shapes. These shapes included the Groutlock brick, which had a diagonal or beveled edge, and the Port Costa Key brick, which had interlocking “notches.” However, subsequent engineering studies in the decades after World War II revealed that a special masonry shape was not necessary when good workmanship and an appropriate mortar mix was employed, and the new masonry shapes ostensibly fell out of use. The Groutlock and Port Costa Key bricks were a short-lived experiment in construction technology following the Long Beach earthquake.

Research did not indicate that they were ever widely used or influential to later developments in construction technology. As such, it does not appear that the use of these brick shapes was an important building technique.

Therefore, neither building at 631 Colorado Avenue appears to be significant 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.

Research into the construction history of 631 Colorado Avenue did not reveal the name of the architect or the builder for the Main Building. The architect for the Auxiliary Building was identified on the 1941 building permit as Frederic Barienbrock. Frederick Barienbrock was a local architect that worked in Santa Monica for 50 years. Barienbrock was responsible for the designs of 1725 Main Street, 827 6th Street, 829 6th Street, and the 1951 addition to the Santa Monica Courthouse and County Building wing of the Santa Monica Civic Center. While Barienbrock appears to have been a successful local architect, his work is not particularly noteworthy and he is not an important architectural figure in the history of the city or the region. Additionally, the utilitarian canopy would not be a notable example of his work, and it no longer conveys its original design intent due to modifications on all elevations.

Therefore, the property at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to be significant under

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 15 -
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 property located at 631 Colorado Avenue is located in a portion of Santa Monica’s original township that is now referred to as the Downtown neighborhood. The property is surrounded by residential, commercial, and industrial properties ranging from one to four stories in height. The subject property is an unremarkable infill site that, although part of the original township, does not appear to be an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood or City.

Therefore, the property at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to be significant under Criterion 6.

Evaluation for Structure of Merit Designation
The City’s historic preservation consultant, GPA, recommends and staff agrees that 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 property at 631 Colorado Avenue was individually identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update and assigned a status code of 5S3, indicating that the property appeared to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica and being one of one of relatively few extant industrial buildings in this area from the pre‐World War II period. However, based on further analysis, the property does not appear to merit designation.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 16 -

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 property at 631 Colorado Avenue is over fifty years of age, but it is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. As discussed above, the buildings are industrial vernacular buildings with utilitarian purposes that are ubiquitous throughout Santa Monica’s industrial areas, such as the Pico neighborhood, and Southern California as a whole.
(B)(2). The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.

The subject property represents the industrial vernacular style which is still represented in the City in large numbers. While the resource is one of the few remaining industrial buildings in the southeastern portion of the Downtown, it is not rare when considered with the larger inventory of buildings in the industrial areas of Santa Monica. Industrial development in this area was not as historically prevalent in Downtown as other areas in the city, such as the Pico neighborhood.

Further north on Colorado Avenue there are numerous extant examples of similarly scaled industrial development.
(B)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.

The subject property is not located within any previously identified potential historic district, and a historic district is unlikely to exist in the area surrounding 631 Colorado Avenue. The subject property is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and multi-family buildings of various styles, sizes, and construction dates. They are not visually or historically unified and do not form a significant or cohesive grouping.

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - 17 -
Summary
The property and buildings at 631 Colorado Avenue represent unremarkable, vernacular buildings that did not appear to influence development patterns or techniques, is not associated with cultural history or persons of significance to the history of the city and otherwise does not appear to meet any of the Landmark criteria. As such the Landmarks Commission should deny designation of the property as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission determine that the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue does not meet the criteria to be designated a City Landmark or Structure of Merit an deny the designation based on the draft findings contained herein.

Pursuant to SMMC 9.36.180, the Landmarks Commission’s determination regarding this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is made by the Landmarks Commission.

Attachments:

A. Public Notice
B. Landmark Nomination Application, May 2021
C. Landmark Assessment Report, GPA Consulting, January 2022

6.B.b
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: 631 Colorado Designation staff report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 631 Colorado Avenue – Revised Findings
The consultant evaluations by ESA and GPA of the Landmark Designation Application for 631 Colorado Avenue have brought many interesting new facts to light. This discussion takes new perspectives into account and is followed by revised suggested findings for the Landmark Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue. The property at 631 Colorado Avenue is listed as 5S3, a potentially individual resource, in the 2018 HRI. ESA quotes the HRIs reasoning on page 3:
631 Broadway [sic] appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is significant for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica. Constructed in 1937, it is one of relatively few extant industrial buildings in the area from the pre-World War II period.

Notwithstanding alterations to the structures outlined in the Landmark Designation Application and in both consultant’s reports, the Santa Monica Conservancy found upon further research that this “windshield” evaluation of the subject property succinctly captured the property’s significance as an extremely rare building type in the city that demonstrates the use of particular materials and building techniques unique to its time of its construction, and was occupied by a series of uses that tell the story of the industrial history of the city.

Etta Vena Moxley
The original application provided a robust history of the life of Etta Vena Moxley. Both ESA and GPA acknowledge Etta Moxley as a person of historic significance. The Conservancy did not nominate this site, which is now devoid of any physical evidence of Moxley’s life, on the strength that association. But because the subject property otherwise meets Criteria 1 and Criteria 4 for designation, we believe that this important story should nonetheless be included in the record. The history of African American communities has not been understood, recorded, or preserved in Santa Monica until recent attention has begun to dig up the stories. In fact, Moxley’s story was found inadvertently during research into 631 Colorado Avenue as a resource reflecting the city’s industrial past. Without artifacts to represent them, Santa Monica’s Historic Preservation program has difficulty recognizing many important histories. But when designation criteria are met based on physical improvements that remain extant, the Landmarks Commission has the discretion to add recognition into the findings of erased histories that took place on a particular parcel. In this case, we recommend that a reference to Etta Moxley be included in the findings.

GPA incorrectly places the city’s first African American homes in the present-day Civic Center (and Samohi campus), which are in the vicinity of Philips Chapel in Ocean Park. In fact, the first African American homes in Santa Monica at the end of the 19th century and in the first decade of the 20th century were in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel, and not a one still exists today. GPA acknowledges that the erased history of African American communities is not easily acknowledged by our current program and recommends other kinds of recognition for

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) the events. The Conservancy hopes the Landmarks Commission will pay close attention to ensure our official program is not biased towards the history of rich, white men who built things that are “worth” saving, and that it recognizes all aspects of our history by referencing earlier stories that took place on redeveloped parcels that bear other significance as well.

These maps show the locations of African American households (in blue) listed in the United States Census for Santa Monica in 1900 and in 1910. Note: The Pacific Ocean is along the bottoms of the maps and the white streak in the middle represents the Santa Monica Freeway.

Architectural Significance
From 1904 – 1972, Santa Monica hosted five different clay extraction and brick manufacturing sites covering much of the eastern reaches of the city from Virginia Avenue to Broadway and from 22nd Street to Franklin Street. By the time of the 1918 Sanborn maps, brick buildings in Ocean Park proliferated on Main Street, Pier Avenue, Marine Street and on the Ocean Front Promenade. Of those, only the brick commercial buildings on Main Street are still extant. In downtown, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Streets, and Santa Monica Boulevard as far as 7th Street were other concentrations of brick buildings. To these groups Wilshire Boulevard in downtown and Wilshire Boulevard between Euclid and 16th Streets were added to the inventory of brick building clusters through the 1920s. All these clusters were retail districts. There were other brick buildings scattered across other districts for schools and homes, but they are few and far between. The peak period of major brickmaking activity in the city and the nation came to a sudden end in 1929, when the stock market crash disabled new building starts. The industry was further impeded by the perception of bricks as unsafe after the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake caused so many structures made of them to collapse. It was in this context that the Simons Brick Company began an aggressive campaign to promote Groutlock bricks and revive the market for clay products. Right before the crash Simons’ plants were producing almost a million bricks per day. Production was restored to 150,000 Groutlock bricks per day as a result of the campaign.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) In this light, 631 Colorado Avenue represents a snapshot of a historical moment of crisis in the brick industry where buildings were made of Groutlock and Porta Costa bricks as manufacturers scrambled to rebuild confidence in the material. Of the 47 brick buildings from our HRI listed in the ESA report, only five are from the 1930s, and only one other, a retail building at 1327 5th Street, also exhibits decorative detailing in the manner of the subject property. ESA notes that a structure at 1631 10th Street exhibits similar construction techniques to the subject property, though that structure was built a decade later and the permits only describe it as brick masonry. GPA dismisses the use of specialized reinforced brick construction from the 1930s because it was a passing phase replaced by more sustained techniques. In fact, the subject property is an extremely rare example that shows how the brick construction industry recovered after two historical blows (the financial crisis and the earthquake) and would soon take over again to provide a ubiquitous material for commercial industrial buildings in Santa Monica through the 1950s and 1960s. The use of this new brick type, plus the use of reinforced concrete posts and beams, marks an advance in building technology that exemplifies this moment in our history.

The subject property exhibits characteristics of the Art Deco style that is rare in commercial industrial buildings in the city. The subject property is dismissed by GPA as an example of the Art Deco style because it is not an exemplary example of that style, disregarding the fact that any style or ornamentation on this type of structure is unusual and likely to be applied with a light touch. Exhibiting the classic features of that style: grooved piers, horizontal speed lines, and step-back forms in the capitals, the subject property is a successful manifestation of how the subtle application of a style can result in an industrial building with notable street appeal.

That is just what makes this a very rare example. The discussion about Groutlock bricks and Porta Costa bricks by GPA shows that while the use of Porta Costa brick is visible on the south elevation, the design of Groutlock bricks would make it difficult to ascertain if they were used or not by a non-invasive visual inspection because the angled surfaces are hidden inside. The notched Porta Costa bricks are visible in the areas that had been stuccoed so their notched grooves would have been covered, but the Groutlock bricks called for in the original building permit were likely used in the areas where the bricks were left exposed. The use of these specialized bricks that transitioned the brick industry through hard times is exactly what is meant by Santa Monica’s Criteria 4 for Landmark Designation: 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.

Cultural Significance
The GPA report quotes the city’s context statement on page 6:
…Though most resources from this period [1920-1941] are no longer extant, Santa Monica’s industrial development during this period provided the foundation for rampant expansion during and after World War II.

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) The history of the tenancy of 631 Colorado Avenue literally “exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City” in a manner consistent with Santa Monica’s Criteria 1 for Landmark Designation. ESA acknowledges the big picture of how the uses of the subject property relate to Santa Monica History on page 52:

The occupancy and ownership history of the subject property illustrates the overall pattern of economic development along Colorado Avenue from the pre-World War II to post-World War II periods, to the mid- to late-twentieth century, and through the first two decades of the twenty-first century. Both buildings on the subject property, Buildings A and B, appear to have been owned and occupied by the same owners/tenants throughout their history. From post-Prohibition initial construction as a wholesale liquor distribution office and warehouse, use of the property then briefly supported post-war classified missile development and atomic research. With the post-war resurgence of automobile production, the site reflected the dominance of American car culture in its use as an auto body paint and repair shop along a busy thoroughfare. With the changing economic focus and explosive growth of media and communications in the twenty-first century, the property has been home to a series of highly successful film production companies.

The post-prohibition era began while the Great Depression still weighed heavily on people’s lives. In Santa Monica, it was characterized by what ESA terms on page 63 as the “mutually supportive endeavors” of tourism and alcohol. Santa Monica’s Context Statement supports this assertion, listing gambling ships, illegal slot machine rings, hotel room bookies, and more as popular distractions. So, in a city where most industrial warehouses were still built with wood, a costly brick beer distribution center with attractive art deco styling reflected the elevated stature of that type of business in that era. As the post-prohibition excitement over access to alcohol normalized, and WWII brought an abrupt end to the Great Depression, the aviation and aerospace industries took hold in the city, occupying space everywhere it could be found, including at the subject property. It also led to a proliferation of new one-story, brick, commercial industrial buildings in various parts of the city including downtown for a variety of new, mostly aerospace related industries springing from the resulting “ripple effect.” The site’s next use as an autobody repair shop, while not significant in itself represents another industry that exemplifies Santa Monica and California culture. That was followed in the 1990s by the present film industry use, which has an obvious connection to the history and culture of the United States, California, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. And Bay Films in particular, would very likely qualify the site for designation in future decades when the active business life of its principles is over and can be viewed as a whole.

GPA dismisses the property’s ability to exemplify the commercial industrial typology, and the beer distribution use in particular because a particular storage structure is no longer extant and there is no loading dock on site anymore. The storage structure, as was noted in the Application for Landmark Designation, was actually a wooden residential structure that was left behind

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) from the site’s residential phase. So, it is not clear how its survival relates to the newer buildings. A demolished canopy on the north property line was similarly insignificant to understanding the use of the main structures. Regarding the lack of a loading dock, one can only wonder how adaptive reuse can be permitted and even encouraged after a resource is deemed of value and is designated as a landmark, but is seen as a loss of integrity if it occurs before designation. As for the auxiliary brick structure on the site, as in all designations, its value to an understanding of the property is debatable. The Santa Monica Conservancy concedes that the secondary (west) structure on the site may not be critical to this designation.

What is important is that it is extremely unlikely that any one-story, brick commercial industrial buildings will be left in downtown in a few more years. We hope the commission will protect this one, unique example. We recently lost the last remaining examples from the first phase of development downtown of Victorian and Queen Anne homes. Let’s not let that happen with phase 2 development in Santa Monica’s downtown.

Revised Findings for Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criteria 1 & 4 Landmark Criteria:

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The subject property qualifies under this criterion. When the A.B.C. Distributing Company building was constructed in 1937, it was the first light industrial commercial building in the south-east portion of Santa Monica’s downtown, which had been a working-class neighborhood occupied by people of color since the founding of the Town of Santa Monica in 1875. The two contributing structures book-ending the property were built during the economic recovery from the Great Depression and the Art Deco/Streamline Moderne period. The primary structure on the parcel reflects classic architectural characteristics of that style. The A.B.C. Distributing Company building was a pioneer of the industrial commercial phase of development in downtown, and the only built in downtown with characteristics of the Art Deco/Streamline Moderne style. Furthermore, since the 1990s the neighborhood has been almost completely redeveloped with a third phase of development, leaving the subject property as a rare and significant example of the industrial commercial phase it pioneered.

The succession of uses of the A.B.C. Distributing Company property conveys a significant pattern of economic development in Santa Monica, representative of the City’s evolution from the 1930s to the present day. It was built as a beer outlet in the city after the repeal of prohibition. The post-prohibition era in Santa Monica was characterized by the tourism industry, which relied heavily of alcohol sales for its appeal. Gambling ships were moored off the coast of the city, and illegal slot machine rings and hotel room bookies added to the new economy. The brick A.B.C. Distributing Company warehouse with attractive art deco styling reflected the elevated stature of the liquor business in that era. With the success of Douglas Aircraft and the coming of WWII, the aviation and aerospace industry took hold in Santa Monica next, soon occupying space everywhere it could be found, including at the subject

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) property. Aerospace industry demands led to a proliferation of new one-story, brick, commercial industrial buildings in various parts of the city including downtown to house a variety of related industries. The site’s next use as an autobody repair shop beginning in the late 1950s when post-war car culture was peaking, represents another industry that exemplifies Santa Monica and California culture. That use was followed in the 1990s by film industry use, which also has a strong connection to the history and culture of the United States, California, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica.

The subject parcel is also significant for its association with Etta Vena Moxley (1870-1950), a dedicated life-long leader in the African American Women’s Club movement in the State of California, Los Angeles and in Santa Monica. She lived at 631 Colorado Avenue from 1898 – 1927 and continued to own it until 1937. Etta Moxley was a member of a leading group of Los Angeles and Santa Monica African American activists striving for social justice and equal rights for people of all races. Etta Moxley was associated with a number of significant groups often in leadership roles.

4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

The subject property qualifies under this criterion because the A.B.C. Distributing Company building is the only known example of post-Long Beach Earthquake transitional engineering techniques for ensuring that brick and mortar structures had seismic integrity.

By 1929, brick buildings in Santa Monica were primarily clustered in the city’s retail districts.

Brick structures serving as schools, churches or homes were thinly scattered across other areas.

Brickmaking in the city’s five brickyards, the first established in 1904, was dramatically curtailed in 1929, when the stock market crash disabled new building starts. The industry was further impeded by the perception of brick as unsafe after the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake. It was in this context that the Simons Brick Company began an aggressive campaign to promote Groutlock bricks to rebuild the market for clay products. Right before the crash Simons’ plants had been producing almost a million bricks per day and were considered the top producer in the world. The promotions restored production to 150,000 Groutlock bricks per day. During that period, brick was primarily used for small scale industrial buildings such as the subject property. The subject property is an excellent example of the use of Groutlock brick within reinforced concrete structural frames as seismically safe construction methods developed in the mid-1930s as a response to the Long Beach Earthquake. No other Groutlock brick structures are known in Santa Monica, making the A.B.C. Distributing Company buildings a unique and rare example of a post-Long Beach Earthquake reinforced brick construction technique.

The subject property exhibits characteristics of the Art Deco style that is rare in commercial industrial buildings in the city. The attractive street presence of the A.B.C. Distributing Company building evidences the successful manifestation of a subtle application of classic elements of

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) the Art Deco style resulting in an industrial building with recognizable street appeal. Its primary façade facing Colorado is divided into three bays separated by protruding piers embossed with four vertical grooved lines, and with stepped tapered caps that rise above the roofline. The area above the windows is stuccoed and embossed with two horizontal sets of grooved lines, three in each set, appearing continuous behind the piers. The stepped caps over the piers reflect the step-backs found in Art Deco architecture. The utilitarian secondary elevation facing east abuts the sidewalk on Seventh Street. It is divided into six bays by a reinforced cement support structure of vertical and horizontal beams that are flush with the surface of the brick. The bay closest to Colorado Avenue is punctuated by a large window opening. Each of the remaining bays has a small window opening in the center, flush with the ceiling height as marked by a horizontal reinforced concrete beam.

Nina Fresco
January 2022

6.B.c
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: ColoradoAve631-Application amendment (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.smgov.net 09/18
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
Applications must be submitted by appointment at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. To schedule an appointment or if you have any questions completing this application please call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:

Land Use Element District: Zoning District:

Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:

APPLICANT
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

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:

This part to be completed by City staff
Received By: Amount Paid: $
Date Submitted: Check No.:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections
of this application
and submit all
required materials.

Incomplete
applications will not
be accepted for
filing.

Landmarks
Commission meets
on the second
Monday of each
month.

The applicant,
representative, or
legal owner familiar
with the project must
be present at the
Landmarks
Commission
meeting.

A decision on
designation is
rendered at the
hearing. All
decisions by the
Landmarks
Commission are
subject to a 10-day
appeal period. An
official appeal form
and fee schedule is
available at the City
Planning Division
Public Counter.

Appealed projects
will be scheduled for
a hearing before the
City Council.

Scott Albright 851.90
05/20/2021
21ENT-0125

6.B.d
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Designation Application 631 Colorado (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))