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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Item 6.A
06/14/22
20 of 29 Item 6.A
06/14/22
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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