Council hears appeal over designation for 1125 18th Street; members indicate support to uphold structure-of-merit listing

The Santa Monica City Council held a de novo hearing on Nov. 18 on an appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s designation of the house at 1125 18th Street as a structure of merit. The nomination was filed by the Santa Monica Conservancy; the property owner and preservation professionals testified at length. The Landmarks Commission had designated the structure in a 4–2 vote earlier, and the appeal asked the council to overturn that choice.

Pam O’Connor, a Landmarks Commissioner and preservation consultant, urged the council to grant the appeal and deny designation, arguing the bungalow is a modest, late example of craftsmans-esqe vernacular that is not "unique or rare" in Santa Monica and that designation criteria require more rigorous evidence. "There is nothing in the nomination that discusses or talks about why it being different is significant," O'Connor said, urging the council to require stronger findings.

Ruth Ann Lehi of the Santa Monica Conservancy, an applicant on the nomination, disagreed and said the house meets multiple criteria for a structure of merit: it is listed in the Historic Resources Inventory, is more than 50 years old and represents a rare variation of a craftsman bungalow in the Wilmot neighborhood. "This building creatively reimagined craftsman elements to result in a fresh, unusual, and distinctive variation on that style," Lehi told the council.

Several neighbors, a Landmarks commissioner who attended, and preservation volunteers described the house as one of only a few surviving single-family craftsman residences in the eastern Wilmot area and said those examples document the neighborhood’s early residential development. By contrast, some speakers and the city's consultant (Page & Turnbull) said the house is more modest and not architecturally exceptional.

Council members asked questions about the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), the role of professional consultants, and the legal standard for designation. Multiple council members said the municipal code’s structure-of-merit standard allows designation if the property satisfies criterion (a) — inclusion in the HRI — or if it meets (b) standards on architectural rarity or representation. Several council members said, under the code’s plain language and the evidence before them, they would vote to deny the appeal and uphold the Landmarks Commission’s designation. Council members emphasized that the hearing is de novo, meaning the council must weigh the evidence independently.

Procedure and next steps: The hearing included applicant, appellant and property-owner presentations plus public comment. Council discussed legal findings and procedural questions about the HRI and the ordinance; the council debated whether the HRI entry (a windshield survey) by itself should be dispositive. The transcript records repeated statements by council members that they would deny the appeal, but it does not record a final roll-call vote for that specific item later in the meeting. The matter remained subject to the formal de novo decision process and any required written findings.

What to watch: Any formal written decision will include required legal findings identifying which code criteria the council relied upon. The designation carries procedural protections: a structure-of-merit listing creates a six-month window prior to demolition and routes design-review applications to the Architectural Review Board; a full landmark designation would trigger a different, more restrictive review path.