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 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 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 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 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