City of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
(310) 458-8341
City of
Santa Monica™
APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number Filed:
By:
APPELLANT NAME: Shyle LP
APPELLANT ADDRESS: 1551 15th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 CONTACT PERSON: Ralph Mechur Phone: 310-721-1254
(all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
Address: Ralph Mechur Architects, 3400 Airport Ave., #5, Santa Monica, CA 90405 PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : 21 ENT-0067
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1665 Appian Way, Santa Monica, CA 90401 APPLICANT: Shawn Hugus
ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: September 13, 2021 and November 8, 2021 ACTION BEING APPEALED: Landmark Designation of existing one-story 4-unit building Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):
Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? X Yes L No If yes, explain:
The Appellant filed a demolition permit application prompting a 3rd party to file an application for designation.
The Landmarks Commission approved the designation despite multiple City Staff and Consultant reports stating it does not meet the requirements for designation and recommending it should be denied. (Please see attachment as well) Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? Yes No If yes, which conditions and why:
NO STOA available. (please see attachment)
Is the appeal related to design issues? Yes No If yes, explain:
Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? Yes X No If yes, explain:
Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? Yes IX No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:
Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? No If yes, explain:
Is the appeal related to other issues? X Yes No If yes, explain:
The building developer/owner/resident was a leading racist supporting the passage of City ordinances to keep Black residents and businesses out of Santa Monica and the beach area in particular. Designating the structure could suggest the City supports his actions, city policies of the era, and the continuation of standards that deny Black/African-American residents and businesses full participation in our society. After serious discussion by the Commission, several Commissioners and public comments shared these concerns, and the Commission decided not to include this information in the findings.
Uld Paini
APPELLANT SIGNATURE:
NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.
Is the appeal related to conditions of approval?
Attachment:
On 11/8/2021, the Landmarks Commission voted 4 to 3 (Yes: Breisch, Garvin, Genser, Summers; No:
Brand, Green, Sloane) in favor of designating the property under Criterion 9.56.100(A)(1) using language adapted from the Landmark Assessment prepared by the City's consultant (Architectural Resources Group, ARG). The STOA is not yet available, but the ARG conclusion that was adapted is included below.
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 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.
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.
In summary, the Landmarks Commission voted in favor of designating 1665 Appian Way for exemplifying elements of Santa Monica's economic history, specifically those associated with patterns of early residential development, and as an early and rare example of "purpose-built multi-family residential development."
This vote was against the recommendations of City Staff. The Staff Reports for the hearings on 9/13/2021 and 11/8/2021 both indicated that upon further review the property was an unremarkable, vernacular example of multi-family housing that did not appear to influence development patterns or represent a rare 1910s building type and did not warrant designation, and that there were better examples of the multi-family housing from the time period, including the 4th Street Corner District and the Bay Street Cluster.
The consultant retained by the owner (GPA Consulting) agreed with the findings in the Staff Reports and felt that the analysis of the building did not follow the recommendations in National Register of Historic Places guidance published by the National Park Service. The guidance is applicable to evaluations of properties under local designation criteria, particularly where specific local guidance to the contrary does not exist, as most local landmark programs are modeled after the National Register. This guidance details what does, or does not, constitute historic significance under each criterion, and is the framework for industry-standard best practices in historical resource identification and evaluation.
GPA feels that the analysis of the property did not demonstrate the importance of the subject property's association with early multi-family residential housing under SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). As indicated in the guidance, all properties constructed at a certain time and place can be associated with a historic trend; the distinction between a property that is old and property that is historic is the importance of that association.
Lastly, 1665 Appian Way was broadly identified as "purpose-built multi-family housing," but the building was not found to possess the distinguishing characteristics of an identified multi-family housing type within the City of Santa Monica, such as a fourplex or bungalow court, that would facilitate a comparative analysis of rarity or importance as it relates to historic significance. As stated in the 11/8/2021 Staff Report, narrowing the geographic area and typology in an analysis creates an appearance of rarity for even the most common property type.