identified both interior and exterior character-defining features for the property to help guide ongoing planning efforts.
Whittier Public Library, Whittier CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Alison was the lead author of the Historic Resources Assessment which determined that the library is significant as an individual resource under National Register Criteria A and C. Constructed in 1958, the property is significant for its association with MidCentury Modernism, postwar period institutional properties, and architect William Henry Harrison. Alison assembled the construction history for the library and the Whittier Civic Center. She created a detailed character-defining features analysis identifying significant and contributing features at the property’s interior, exterior, and site. Alison coordinated with the project architect to ensure that the project met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI) in order to meet community’s contemporary needs while respecting the building’s historic character. Alison authored and oversaw the production of a HABS report to document the library building prior to selective demolition and project construction.
Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Historic Resource Evaluation and Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Diego, CA. Senior Architectural Historian.
Alison conducted an HRA for the 1930s, 40s, and 50s-designed elementary school campus. The property was found to be a historic district eligible for its association with the post-war development of the Kensington neighborhood, and for its association with two master San Diego architects. The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and a CEQA analysis was performed, resulting in the Mitigation Measures and design considerations for future construction within the district. Alison authored and oversaw the production of a HABS report to document the campus and its buildings prior to project construction.
1202 3rd Street Promenade Preservation Consulting, Santa Monica, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Constructed in 1949 as a JC Penny department store, the commercial building was designed in the Late Moderne style. ESA previously worked to produce a Landmark Assessment Report, and today, the property is recognized as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. Alison conducted a SOI Standards conformance review of a proposed tenant improvement project for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
1221 Hermosa Avenue Preservation Consulting, Hermosa Beach, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. ESA serves as a historic preservation consultant to the City of Hermosa Beach, and has a longstanding relationship with the building at 1221 Hermosa Boulevard, known as the Bijou Building. The building is a former historic theatre and bank designed in the NeoClassical Revival style, constructed in 1923.
Alison evaluated proposed tenant improvement modifications including the removal of non-original features and the retention of original features related to original theatre and bank uses. Alison has conducted design reviews which included an understanding of all modifications to the space over time, characterdefining features analyses, and reviews of proposed plans against CEQA thresholds and the SOI Standards for compliance. Alison is currently participating with overseeing the construction monitoring efforts for the theatre space as part of this ongoing project.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S.
Universal Hilton Historic Resources Technical Report and Environmental Impacts Report for 555 W Universal Terrace Parkway, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. The Universal Hilton Hotel was designed by master architect, William L. Pereira in 1983 in the Postmodern style. As one of Pereira’s final commissions, the hotel building was originally part of a master plan and was designed to accommodate visitors to the expanding Universal Theme Parks.
Alison conducted in-depth architect and postmodern style research, and evaluated the property for historic significance as part of the Historic Resources Technical Report.
Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program, Cultural Resource Assessment, Seal Beach, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration EIR project will reinstate historic wetlands to a previously developed oil rig/production site that has been in operation since the early 20th century. As part of the larger restoration plan program, ESA was hired to conduct a cultural resources study to observe, document, and prepare preliminary mitigation measures related to identified built environment resources. Alison collaborated with the archeology team during a field visit to identify potential sites for later investigative studies. She reviewed historic aerial photographs, and conducted research to determine the companies and general ages of oil-industry related infrastructure including oil rigs, operations sheds, and decommissioned tank farms. Mitigation recommendations presented for the structures included Historic Resource Assessment reports to be conducted in the future. 3325 Monterey Road CEQA Impacts Analysis and Design Review, San Marino, California. Senior Architectural Historian. A two-story Art Deco style single-family residence, constructed in 1927 in San Marino, California was determined to be a historic resource. Proposed modifications to the residence included a two-story rear addition and building rehabilitation. Alison assisted with preservation design consultation and conducted a plan review for conformance with the SOI Standards for the proposed project. She coordinated with the project architect to better convey preservation components of the proposed work into the drawing set for city review. The review required a character-defining features analysis to determine the level of significance of the remaining features.
Golden Gate Village Historic Resource Evaluation, Marin City, CA. Architectural Historian. The highly-intact Golden Gate Village low-income housing complex was constructed in 1958 to house many of the former Marinship workers and their families. Designed by prominent mid-century designers including Aaron G. Green, John Carl Warnecke, and Lawrence Halprin, the property serves as an example of a well-designed housing complex, significant as a product of post-war urban development and for its prominent mid-century designers. Alison performed the site visit and conducted research through local and private archival repositories, plan analysis, and interviews, to produce the report narrative and historic evaluation for the property. Today, the property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
McDonnell Hall/Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel Historic Structure Report, San Jose, CA. Architectural Historian. Constructed as a parish church in 1914, the building moved to its current location in 1953. Here, the building served as a
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S.
newly formed Catholic Mission, the Center of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The property is associated with civil rights activist and labor rights leader Cesar Chavez, and the mid-20th century Mexican American civil rights movement. Alison assisted with the research, production, and design recommendations, including bringing the building back to its appearance during its period of significance, which required a meticulous analysis of the building’s historic integrity. The property today is listed as a National Historic Landmark.
Historic YMCA Hotel Preservation Consulting in the Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA. Senior Architectural Historian, Project Manager. Built in the early 20th century, the building was formerly a YMCA hotel used by young navy men and is currently a hotel along the waterfront with an adjacent YMCA recreational center. The hotel was proposing modifications which included rehabilitation work and reconfiguring the interior lobby space. Alison researched and documented the interior evolution by reviewing old plans, movies filmed on-location, post cards, and existing fabric. She established the building’s construction chronology with a focus on the building’s public spaces at the interior, overseeing the entire production of the report and created recommendations to update the client’s proposed plans which included acceptable sensitive modifications to historic features and recommendations for potential future demolition.
Palo Alto History Museum Historic Preservation Consulting, Palo Alto, CA.
Architectural Historian. The Spanish Revival style Roth Building was the original location of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The former medical building is undergoing a conversion into a local history museum with gallery space, interpretive areas, and archival and study rooms. Alison assisted with secondary research efforts of both the medical foundation and the building, upon modifications to the museum’s scope of work. She conducted a Part 2 Federal historic rehabilitation tax credit application review which included recommendation to best comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.
Half Moon Bay Barn and Jail Museum Historic Resource Evaluation and Preservation Consulting, Half Moon Bay, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. The City of Half Moon Bay was working with a local historical society to implement a history museum at the site of its early 20th century jail and adjacent barn. Alison conducted an in-depth historic resource assessment then reviewed proposed plans for buildings and site modifications to accommodate gallery space, offices, and archival storage. Coordinating with project architects, she assisted with the creation of recommendations for project compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Toscano Hotel Preservation Consulting, Sonoma State Historic Park, Sonoma, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. The two-story wood framed Toscano Hotel was constructed in the 1850s and is a contributing resource to the Sonoma Plaza National Historic Landmark District and the Sonoma Plaza National Register Historic District. Alison conducted a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards reviews of proposed changes to the interior of the building. Proposed changes included the conversion of a portion of the building from a hotel saloon museum display area into a retail concession area for the California State Parks. Project recommendations included sensitive design solutions to maintain original features.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Robin Rundle
Architectural Historian
Robin brings a unique set of skills and expertise to the southern California cultural resources group. With extensive experience in arts and architecture, she conducted primary archival research in Florence, Italy and was an archivist at the Getty Research Institute. Focusing on multimedia production, oral history, and arts education, Robin has created and managed projects for corporate, commercial, and non-profit clients. Ranging from documentary to kiosk-based interactive programs, audio tours and oral histories, she has completed productions for clients including SoCalGas and Southern California Edison, the Beall Center for Art + Technology, the Bowers Museum, the Orange County Museum of Art, and the University of California. In addition, she has completed various historic preservation projects in southern California, specifically Phase I of the video documentation of the 76-acre Rocketdyne Factory in Canoga Park for ESA, Robinson’s Beverly Hills, and the Annenberg Beach House in Santa Monica.
Robin has considerable experience interviewing artists, architects, and subject matter experts. Additionally, she served as an interviewer for the USC Shoah Foundation -- The Institute for Visual History and Education. Robin is committed to promoting deep understanding through interpretive content.
Relevant Experience
Kun House II, Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Nomination (LAHCM), Los Angeles, CA.
Architectural Historian. Robin co-authored the Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Landmark nomination for Kun House II, designed by master architect Richard Neutra. The nomination involved archival research and physical inspection of the property as well as an analysis of the home’s significance as an example of Neutra’s small-scale residential designs.
Lockwood Avenue Elementary School Character Defining Features Matrix , Los Angeles, CA.
Architectural Historian. Robin identified character-defining features of the 1936 Art Deco / Streamline Moderne Lockwood Avenue Elementary School and provided preservation recommendations and treatments for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
Main and Naud, Historic Resources Assessment, Los Angeles, CA.
Architectural Historian. An assessment of three mid-century industrial buildings on the site of the former Carnation Company Ice Cream and Milk Plant in the Central City North Community Plan Area (CPA). Robin conducted extensive research on this multi-building complex for milk and ice cream production, storage, and distribution against four historic contexts of evaluation eligibility.
EDUCATION
MA, Art History, Syracuse
University, Florence, Italy
BA, History/Art History,
University of California,
Irvine
AWARDS
The Florence Fellowship,
Graduate Studies in
Italian Renaissance Art,
Syracuse University
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment B
Building Permits
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1741 Attachment: Property
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 :
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 :
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1745 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1746 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1747 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1748 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1749 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1750 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1751 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1752 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1753 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1754 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1755 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1756 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1757 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1758 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1759 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1760 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1761 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1762 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1763 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1764 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1765 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1766 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1767 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1768 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1769 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1770 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1771 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1772 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1773 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1774 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1775 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1776 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1777 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1778 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1779 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1780 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1781 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1782 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1783 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment C
Sanborn Maps
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1784 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1785 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90401 August 09, 2021 6610038.3
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1786 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:
Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
EDR Inquiry # Contact:
Site Name: Client Name:
Certification #
PO #
Project
1986
1965
1950
1918
1909
1902
1895
1891
08/09/21 631 Colorado Ave 631 Colorado ESA 626 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90401 6610038.3 Los Angeles, CA 90017 [email protected] The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by ESA were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.
The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. AA11-4A72-B169 NA Maps Provided: NA Certification #: AA11-4A72-B169 ESA (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2021 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 6610038 3 2
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1787 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1986 Source Sheets
1986
Volume 1N, Sheet 38
1986
Volume 1N, Sheet 50
1986
Volume 1S, Sheet 39
1986
Volume 1S, Sheet 42
1986
Volume 1S, Sheet 60
1965 Source Sheets
1965
Volume 1S, Sheet 39
1965
Volume 1S, Sheet 42
1965
Volume 1S, Sheet 60
1965
Volume 1N, Sheet 38
1950 Source Sheets
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 16
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 38
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 39
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 42
6610038 3 3
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1788 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1950 Source Sheets
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 50
1918 Source Sheets
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 16
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 38
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 39
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 42
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 50
1909 Source Sheets
1909
Volume 1, Sheet 8
1909
Volume 1, Sheet 12
1909
Volume 1, Sheet 13
6610038 3 4
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1789 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1902 Source Sheets
1902
Volume 1, Sheet 5
1902
Volume 1, Sheet 9
1895 Source Sheets
1895
Volume 1, Sheet 7
1895
Volume 1, Sheet 8
1891 Source Sheets
1891
Volume 1, Sheet 7
66100383 5
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1790 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1986 1986 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1S, Sheet 60
Volume 1S, Sheet 42
Volume 1S, Sheet 39
Volume 1N, Sheet 50
Volume 1N, Sheet 38
6610038 3 6
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1791 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
Site Name: Address: City, ST, ZIP: Client: AA11-4A72-B169 AA11-4A72-B169 1965 1965 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90401 ESA EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Copyright 66100383 7
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1792 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
Site Name: Address: City, ST, ZIP: Client: AA11-4A72-B169 AA11-4A72-B169 1965 1965 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90401 ESA EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Copyright 66100383 8
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1793 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
Site Name: Address: City, ST, ZIP: Client: AA11-4A72-B169 AA11-4A72-B169 1965 1965 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90401 ESA EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Copyright 66100383 9
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1794 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
Site Name: Address: City, ST, ZIP: Client: AA11-4A72-B169 AA11-4A72-B169 1965 1965 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave Santa Monica, CA 90401 ESA EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Copyright 66100383 10
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1795 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1950 1950 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 50
Volume 1, Sheet 42
Volume 1, Sheet 39
Volume 1, Sheet 38
Volume 1, Sheet 16
6610038 3 11
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1796 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1918 1918 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 50
Volume 1, Sheet 42
Volume 1, Sheet 39
Volume 1, Sheet 38
Volume 1, Sheet 16
6610038 3 12
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1797 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1909 1909 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 13
Volume 1, Sheet 12
Volume 1, Sheet 8
6610038 3 13
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1798 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1902 1902 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 9
Volume 1, Sheet 5
6610038 3 14
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1799 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1895 1895 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 8
Volume 1, Sheet 7
6610038 3 15
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1800 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.
Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
AA11-4A72-B169
AA11-4A72-B169 1891 1891 Order Date: 08/09/2021 Certification # Site Name: Address: 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Ave City, ST, ZIP: Santa Monica, CA 90401 EDR Inquiry: 6610038.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 7
6610038 3 16
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1801 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment D
Table 5. Summary of Research
on Reinforced Brick Buildings in
Santa Monica
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1802 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1803 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-1 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON REINFORCED BRICK BUILDINGS IN SANTA MONICA Address Year Built Notes
Area 1
1001 Colorado 1960 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
1546 14th Street 1957 Single-story brick building,
auto body shop
Building Permit Notes:
brick and concrete
1415 Colorado 1955 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1804 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-2 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 1519 Colorado 1956 Single story-brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
wood frame and stucco
(this note signifies the brick
is a veneer)
1601 Colorado 1955
Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
wood frame and stucco
(this note signifies the brick
is a veneer)
1631 Colorado 1958 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
brick masonry
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1805 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-3 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 2235 Colorado 1970 No permit records
2800 Colorado 1984 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Image Unavailable
1630 Colorado 1959 Single-story brick building,
commercial industrial
1740 Stewart 1967 Single-story brick building,
commercial industrial
Building Permit Notes:
brick and concrete
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1806 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-4 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 1220 Olympic 1968 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
brick and concrete
1201 Olympic 1949 Single-story brick building,
commercial-industrial
1660 Euclid 1966 Single-story brick building,
renovated commercial
Building Permit Notes:
brick
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1807 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-5 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 1630 Euclid 1955 Single-story brick building,
renovated commercialindustrial
Building Permit Notes:
masonry
1716 12th Street 1972 Single-story brick building,
commercial-industrial
Building Permit Notes:
concrete block
1635 12th Street 1979 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1808 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-6 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 1101 Olympic 1955 Single story brick building,
commercial-industrial
Building Permit Notes:
brick masonry
1639 11th Street 1961 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
1631 10th Street 1946 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
masonry and concrete
(concrete beam grid
system)
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1809 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-7 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 929 Olympic 1957 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
concrete
1661 9th Street 1957 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
brick and concrete
1668 9th Street 1955 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1810 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-8 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 1660 Lincoln 1953 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Area 2
2910 Main
Street
1913 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
1940 alteration, 1945
alteration at interior and to
front brick, 1945 permit
granted to A. B. C.
2802 Main
Street
1946 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1811 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E. Table 5. Targeted Search: Comparable Brick Buildings in Santa Monica 631 Colorado Avenue E-9 ESA / D202100734.00
City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report December 2021 2926 Main
Street
1948 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
cement block
177 Pier
Avenue
1909 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
brick masonry
Area 3
2012 Lincoln 1967 Single-story brick building,
commercial storefront
Building Permit Notes:
brick masonry
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1812 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Attachment E
DPR Forms
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1813 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
P1. Other Identifier: ____
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; ☐ of ☐ of Sec ; B.M.
Address 621 and 631 Colorado Avenue City Santa Monica Zip 90401 UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11S , 362445.82 mE/ 3764920.97 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 4291-023-009
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject property is located on a rectilinear lot on the north corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street in the Downtown area of Santa Monica. The property contains two brick, single-story, Commercial/Industrial Vernacular style buildings: Building A constructed in 1937 and Building B constructed in 1941. Building A faces south toward Colorado Boulevard and encompasses the full south-to-north depth of the lot; its east side elevation sits on the east property line, and its west side elevation faces an on-site parking lot; the rear north elevation sits on the north property line. Building B is located at the west corner of the lot and is oriented to the east toward the parking area and Building A; its south side elevation sits on the south property line and its west rear elevation sits on the west property line. [See Continuation Sheets]
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 (1-3 story commercial building) *P4. Resources Present:
☒ Building ☐ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) 631 Colorado Avenue,
view west, August 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: ☒ Historic ☐
Prehistoric ☐ Both
1937/Los Angeles County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:
Michael Bay, 500 Pounds of Dog,
Inc., 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
1000, Los Angeles, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Alison Garcia Kellar,
ESA, 626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
*P9. Date Recorded: December
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive Pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.")
ESA, 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa
Monica, California: City Landmark
Assessment and Evaluation Report,
December 2021
*Attachments: ☐NONE ☐Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐Other (List):
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other
Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1814 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica *NRHP Status Code 6Z
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Commercial/Industrial Vernacular *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Located at 631 Colorado Avenue, the subject property is located on the north corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street in the Downtown Neighborhood in the City of Santa Monica.1 The property is bound by 7th Street to the east, Colorado Avenue to the south, and 6th Court, an alleyway, to the west. Situated on Block 193, on Lots K and L, the property contains two buildings: a one-story brick building with a rear second story addition at the east extent (Building A), and a one-story stucco-clad brick building at the western extent (Building B). A surface parking lot separates the two buildings from one another and is accessed from along Colorado Avenue at the southern extent of the site and from 7th Street at the northern extent of the site. The property is oriented along Colorado Avenue. A metal security fence with cement walls and pylons extends along Colorado Avenue between Buildings A and B. The fence includes a metal pedestrian gate located immediately west of Building A. A vehicular gated entrance to the property is accessed from 6th Court alleyway. [See Continuation Sheets]
*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes ☐Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
Brick construction, minimal decorative detailing, flat roof, simple rectangular form B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme Santa Monica Commercial Development (1875-1977); Pre-World War II Commercial Development (1920-1944), Industrial Development Along Colorado Avenue (1890s-1960s); and Early 20th Century Commercial Vernacular (1900-1950) Area Downtown Santa Monica Period of Significance 1937-1941 Property Type Commercial Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Based on current research and assessment, the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to meet any of the City of Santa Monica Landmark Criteria 9.56.100(a)(1) through (a)(6) as discussed above. However, it does meet Structure of Merit criterion 9.56.080(a) as it was previously identified in the City’s Historic Inventory. It also meets the Structure of Merit 50-year age criterion 9.56.080(b) as Building A was constructed in 1937 making it 84 years of age, and Building B was constructed in 1941 making it 80 years of age. However, the subject property does not meet criteria
9.56.080 (b)(1) through (3), and therefore is ineligible as a Structure of Merit. [See Continuation Sheets] B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
[See Continuation Sheets]
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Alison Garcia Kellar, ESA
*Date of Evaluation: December 2021
1 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1815 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
*P3a. Description (continued):
There is an alley named 6th Court that runs north to south along the west side of the subject property. A driveway from 6th Court provides access to the subject property at its north corner. Building B is located adjacent to the driveway on the south. The subject property is enclosed by a metal security fence with concrete pylons that runs along Colorado Avenue between Building A and Building B. To the north side of Building B, an automated gate allows access to the site off 6th Court. There is additional access to the site through a pedestrian gate immediately to the west of Building A facing Colorado Avenue. Originally, site access was directly off Colorado Avenue and not off of 6th Court. There is mature landscaping including bushes and trees within the property line at the parking lot, with bushes lining Colorado Avenue, and palm trees lining 7th Street.
Building A, 631 Colorado Avenue
Building A is a brick one-story Commercial/Industrial Vernacular style building that was constructed in 1937 with later additions including a second-story addition at its rear north end and a one-story addition that projects westward at its north corner. Located on the western corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street, Building A is oriented facing Colorado Avenue and extends northward along 7th Street. Building A is largely rectangular in plan and includes a second-story addition at its north end and a small one-story projection at the north corner elevation. Building A is constructed of brick with a reinforced concrete frame and sits on a concrete slab foundation. Building permits and physical evidence indicate that the original brick finish has been removed by two sandblasting campaigns that have damaged the original brick and mortar joints and pointing. The original one-story rectangular portion of the building has an arched wood truss roof and a horizontal brick parapet. There are skylights and mechanical equipment on the roof.
Originally constructed as a one-story building, a second-story addition at the north end, and a ground floor wing addition at the north corner were completed between 1998 and 2002. The second-story addition has a flat roof and is accessed via an interior staircase from the main ground floor space. The second-story addition has an exterior door opening at its west end that opens onto a rooftop patio above the ground floor one-story wing addition. All windows in the original section of Building A have been replaced with new metal industrial-style multi-lite windows (fixed and hopper assemblies), and there is evidence of brick infill at the location of former window and door openings that have been closed.
Building A’s south elevation facing Colorado Avenue is comprised of three structural bays (original) which are divided by vertical fluted concrete pylons incised with vertical groove lines. The pylons each terminate in a stepped pyramidal capital that rises just above the fascia and parapet. There is an attached sign on the center bay of the parapet comprised of individual metal channel letters that reads “Bay Films”. Three large non-original multi-lite industrial type metal window assemblies sit within each bay, atop a brick bulkhead. Concrete fascia and a parapet span between the three structural bays and includes horizontal score lines above and below which correspond with the vertically fluted pylons.
Originally, Building A’s primary facade was located along Colorado Avenue at the south elevation and included two storefronts within the two outer structural bays that each had a single-leaf wood and glass
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1816 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
entrance door and paired fixed wood windows adjacent to the door. There was a row of four rectangular transom windows above the doors and windows. The transoms over the doors were openable hopper windows. There were similar paired fixed wood windows surmounted by four transoms within the center structural bay. Originally, attached wall signs were located on the parapet that read from left-to-right, “ABC”, “ABC Distributing Co.” and “Wine Beer Liquors”. The bulkhead walls below the windows appear to have been stuccoed. A comparison of a historic photo of the building from 1945 with existing conditions indicates that the original storefronts have been removed and openings altered. The current windows along Colorado Avenue sit within original storefront openings, and the lower portion of the two door openings have been filled in. There is evidence of water damage and graffiti removal on the bulkhead walls on this elevation.
The eastern elevation along 7th Street extends the depth of the lot and includes a non-original metalframe 5:4 multi-lite industrial-type window assembly at the south corner of the elevation. This elevation is comprised of six regularly spaced structural bays delineated by its reinforced concrete frame, with brick walls (sandblast damage evident) and a brick parapet (sandblasted) at the roofline. There is evidence of parapet repair at this elevation, along with seismic structural reinforcement. Evidence of graffiti removal is apparent. All of the original windows have been replaced with metal industrial type multi-lite new windows within the original window openings. A contemporary second-floor addition rises from the final bay at the northern extent of the elevation, which was constructed with similar red brick and reinforced concrete framing and has similar multi-lite industrial type metal windows. The northernmost portion (rear wall) of Building A’s addition consists of a horizontally scored concrete wall at the second floor, which surmounts a blank brick wall with concrete framing.
Accessible through a pedestrian gate in the metal fence along Colorado Avenue, or through a vehicular gate along 6th Court, the asphalt surface parking area for the subject property occupies the majority of the lot. There is a paved walkway from the pedestrian gate on the south side of the lot to the current building entrance on the west elevation of Building A. Building A’s west elevation faces the parking lot and has a similar in organization to the east elevation along 7th Street. The west elevation includes six regularly spaced structural bays delineated by a reinforced-concrete frame, with brick walls and a horizontal brick parapet. The entire west elevation has been sandblasted as has the exterior and interior of the whole building. Smaller 4:2 and 3:2 multi-lite metal frame industrial type windows punctuate three of the bays, while a contemporary recessed entrance sits roughly centered in the elevation. The main entrance includes a contemporary glass door with sidelites and transom windows.
Comparison of existing conditions with Sanborn maps and aerial photos indicates that the existing building entrance is in the location of a former garage bay, and that the large fixed multi-lite industrial window to the north is situated within a second former garage bay. There is also evidence of an enclosed (bricked) former single door opening that has been converted to a 3:2 window, at the south end of this elevation. Projecting from the final northern bay along the west elevation sits a new “sunroom” addition constructed of reinforced concrete that features large multi-lite floor-to-ceiling window assemblies at its visible south and west elevations. Atop this “sunroom” addition sits a rooftop patio. This addition forms an
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1817 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
L-shape at the rear north corner of the building. The area along the addition and west side of the building is planted with grass and other decorative landscaping.
The interior includes main floor area with an arched wood ceiling with exposed wood trusses and rafters.
Original brickwork and concrete framing (sandblasted) are exposed throughout the interior. Some damage/deterioration is evident on the interior including water intrusion/leaks, efflorescence, sandblasting, and disintegration of the brick and mortar, and spalling of the concrete. Incompatible mortar patching is also visible at areas with later brick infill/alteration. The interior includes concrete slab flooring, contemporary partitions, and a contemporary second story mezzanine addition at the northern part of the building. The addition includes a metal staircase that leads from the main floor to a second story mezzanine and offices. The mezzanine level opens to a rooftop patio above the concrete ground-floor addition. Contemporary drywall and wood framing s abuts the historic brick and concrete walls, and metal seismic armature tying the structural system can be seen at the interior.
Building B, 621 Colorado Avenue
Building B is a brick one-story Commercial/Industrial Vernacular style building clad in smoothly finished stucco that was originally constructed in 1941. Located on the western extent of the subject property, the building extends along 6th Court south to the property line at Colorado Avenue. A driveway from 6th Court runs along the north end of Building B to the parking area on the subject property. Building B faces east toward the parking area. The brick masonry building has a rectangular footprint and a flat roof with a built up exposed brick parapet. The building’s southern elevation is comprised of a single bay with a concrete horizontal beam, flanked by concrete pylons with stepped pyramidal capitals.
Building B was originally used for truck storage and loading, and its north elevation formerly included open bays for truck parking; the openings have been filled in and new windows installed for offices. A present-day comparison with a historic photo from 1945 indicates that the east elevation along Colorado Avenue originally included painted advertisements on the east brick wall for “A. B. C. Beer” and “Budweiser”, and a painted sign on the parapet for “A. B. C. Distributing Co.”, showing that this south elevation never included openings; it is still a blank brick wall today and has been sandblasted.
The building’s west elevation abuts 6th Court, an alley way that runs between Colorado Avenue and Broadway. This elevation has been covered with smooth stucco and has a single scored line toward the parapet, and no fenestration. A metal automated vehicular gate abuts the building’s north corner and extents north to the north property line. The north elevation similarly has no fenestration and is covered with smooth stucco with a single scored line at the parapet. Metal signage toward the parapet reads:
“BAY FILMS PLATINUM DUNES,” which sits to the right of a short metal ladder that provides access to the roof.
The eastern elevation facing the parking area, which formerly included multiple open bays for trucks, was enclosed in the late 1990s or early 2000s. The elevation is clad in smooth stucco and includes a score line toward the parapet. A centralized contemporary recessed entrance includes a single lite door with
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1818 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
sidelites and transom windows.This configuration mirrors the contemporary entrance at Building A. A series of three 4:3 multi-lite steel window assemblies flank either side of the recessed entrance.
A metal security fence extends from the eastern corner of Building B and continues along Colorado Avenue to the western corner of Building A. The metal security fence is attached to the pylon and sits above a new concrete wall. New matching pylons similar to the pylons on Buildings A and B serve as fence posts for the security fence.
At the interior of Building B, original brickwork is visible in several of the studio offices located in the southern extent and along the western wall of the building. The brick appears to have once been painted, and has since been sandblasted. The original brick building received an addition to its north end in 1958, and the original exterior brick wall at the former north elevation is still present within the building near the building entrance lobby. The brick here appears to be deteriorating due to water damage. The entire interior has been remodeled with contemporary materials including drywall at the walls and ceilings (except at the areas with exposed original brick), cement and rolled carpet flooring, and contemporary doors.
P5a. Photographs (continued):
Building A south facade, view north
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1819 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
BuildingA east elevation along7th Street, view west
BuildingA east elevation with second‐story addition, view north
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1820 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Building A west elevation with contemporary building entrance at center and ground‐floor projecting wing addition at left, view east
Building A interior with contemporary second story staircase
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1821 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Building B south facade along Colorado Avenue, view north Building B, perspective view of west and north elevations with corner pylon, smooth stucco cladding, and mechanized gate, view south
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1822 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Building B contemporary recessed entrance along eastern elevation, facing west View of Building B interior brickwork of original wall that was formerly at the exterior northern extent of the building, prior to new north addition, view to east
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1823 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
*B6. Construction History (continued):
Building A
According to Los Angeles County Assessor’s records and the original City of Santa Monica building permit, the existing Building A was constructed in 1937. The original building permit was issued to A. B. C. Distributing Company for a single-story brick building for office and warehouse purposes. The address on this permit was listed as 625 Colorado for Block 193 and Lots K and L. The building was to measure 50’ x 100’ and was constructed on a 100’ x 150’ lot which indicates that Building A was constructed to the extent of the lot line along 7th Street. The property then included a garage or cottage according to the building permit, which was demolished for redevelopment of the lot. According to the building permit, the specified building material to be used was “groutlock brick” and the structure would be finished with a composition roof. The building would be a single story and reach a maximum height of 20 feet. There was no architect or contractor listed on the permit. One year after construction, an aerial photograph taken in 1938 depicts Building A on the subject parcel. The lot at the time appeared to include several auxiliary buildings and a fence surrounding the perimeter. A photograph taken in 1945 illustrates Building A roughly 8 years after construction. Originally, there were two storefront entrances to Building A along the Colorado Avenue elevation. The south elevation included three bays delineated by fluted concrete pylons. Each bay included wood frame fixed windows with transom windows above, and bulkheads below. Two single lite doors sat recessed within the first and third structural bays. The horizontal parapet between the structural bays was scored along the lower and upper fascia and the rectangular panels on the parapet spanning the structural bays had painted signage on each of the three panels that read, right to left, “A. B.
C.;” “A. B. C. DISTRIBUTING CO.;” AND “WINE BEER LIQUORS.” The east elevation, which fronts 7th Street included one wood fixed window with transom window assembly, and at least two other windows that are difficult to discern due to the low quality of the image. The east elevation appeared to have exposed brick, with adjacent mature palm trees lining the sidewalk.
A Sanborn map created in 1950 depicts the building’s continued use for wholesale liquor and beer, shows that the building construction included reinforced concrete pylons, concrete floors and beams and a wood truss roof. There were two adjacent 1-story canopy structures located along the western elevation of Building A by 1950. By this time, Building B was constructed and was used for truck storage for the A. B. C. Distributing Company. An aerial photograph taken in 1952 depicts these 1-story canopy structures, which included parked trucks adjacent to Building A.
At some point the building must have been painted. Roughly 18 years after original construction, in 1955, a building permit was issued to sandblast the brick building when Aerophysics Development Corporation occupied the building. Additional electrical and gas improvements were made in 1955 according to building permits.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1824 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Building A appeared to have been used as a body shop from about 1957 to about 1994. In 1957, a permit for electrical work was issued to new building owner Jack Hammer when the property was converted into an auto body shop. It does not appear that any structural changes were made at this time. A subsequent 1958 building permit indicates that a large, projecting metal sign reading “Keystone Auto Body” was installed to advertise the business to passers-by along Colorado Avenue. The sign permit indicates that Building B was then used as a paint shop for the auto body business. Subsequent building permits show electrical and plumbing improvements were completed for the property between 1958 and 1993. A 1964 aerial indicates that the adjacent 1-story canopy structures along the northern property extent had been demolished. The 1965 Sanborn map indicates Building A’s continued usage as an auto body repair shop, which is also illustrated in the 1986 Sanborn map. The Northridge earthquake in 1994 caused damage to the building, as indicated by the building safety assessment which indicated “fallen bricks and a rear wall down,” yet no structural damage was sustained.1 This indicates some unspecified loss of brick from the building.
With a change in ownership the in following year, 1995, a permit was issued to include 17 parking stalls on the site at the central parking lot between Buildings A and B. Subsequent permits issued between 1995 and 1996 included extensive tenant improvements to both buildings and the site. Modifications to Building A indicated a new office use, which was illustrated in a sketch plan accompanying a 1995 building permit. The plan included new interior walls throughout, delineating office spaces, conference areas, storage, and restrooms, in addition to a new main entrance along the west elevation, where there were formerly 1-story canopies. In addition, the plan detailed landscaping along the west elevation and the parking lot.
Extensive permits were issued in 1997, including: electrical work; sandblasting at both the exterior and interior; the raising of a section of 33’ x 50’ of floor; and the reconstruction of 49 linear feet of parapet wall, which may have been to repair damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
In 1998, a new building permit application was submitted for a second-floor addition and renovation work, with total valuation of improvements estimated at $100,000. A subsequent 1998 permit was issued to construct a metal fence with concrete pylons. In 2002, an application to reinstate the previous expired permit to complete the second-floor addition was submitted.
The permit was for a second story addition (50’ x 100’, located at the north extent of the building) and a one-story addition at the ground floor (25’ x 42’, located to the south of the second story addition) for office production use. By the 2005 aerial photograph, it appears that both the one- and two-story additions had been constructed.
Building B
In 1941, four years after the construction of Building A, a building permit was issued for the construction of a loading canopy at the western extent of the subject property at 621 Colorado 1 Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment, Keystone Body Shop, January 17, 1994 [Handwritten ref, no.: DA0239].
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1825 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Avenue. The loading canopy was constructed for use by the A. B. C. Distributing Company, and it likely served as a shelter when loading trucks with product prior to regional distribution. The canopy was rectangular measuring 16’ x 38’ in plan, 16’ tall, and included a composition roof.
Noted Santa Monica architect Frederic C. Barienbrock, AIA, was listed as the architect for the canopy. Barienbrock had achieved notoriety by the 1940s period and his knowledge of reinforced groutlock brick masonry, which was used in Building A, is documented in a Los Angeles Times article from 1934. A photograph taken in 1945 illustrates Building B’s configuration four years after construction, and likely reflects its original configuration. The structure was oriented east toward the central parking lot that was shared with Building A and included five bays for cars or trucks. It appears that the south elevation, west wall, and the bulkhead at the north elevation were comprised of brick. A metal chain-link fence once lined Colorado Avenue between Buildings A and B.
In 1947, a building permit was issued to A. B. C. Distributing Company owner, Glen Moyer, to enclose the canopy with five pairs of sliding doors, which were to be installed within the five bays at the eastern elevation. This modification transformed the canopy into a storage building, and also included the installation of a 3’ platform at the interior for a total valuation of $800. The sketch accompanying the building permit illustrated the existing brick canopy walls, the new sliding doors, and then new platform. A Sanborn map issued in 1950 indicates several additional auxiliary storage buildings abutting Building B to the north and continuing along the northern extent of the property line leading to Building A. These structures were likely similarly canopies in-type, as indicated by the dashed line on the Sanborn map, yet they were not comprised of brick, as Building B was, as indicated by the structural symbols on the map. These auxiliary storage structures are also visible in a 1952 aerial photograph. Building B was sandblasted in 1955, according to a building permit.
Several building permits were issued in 1958 which included: the enlargement of Building B to be used to polish cars; a large sign for “Keystone Auto Body;” plumbing; and for cinder block walls, which were either part of Building B or retaining walls at the site. A sketch accompanying the permit to enlarge the Building illustrated a “proposed shelter” as a standalone structure measuring 24’ x 30’ in plan, in the area that is presently used as the property’s driveway along 6th Court. This canopy is no longer extant today. By the time of a 1964 aerial photograph, some of the auxiliary storage along the northern property line had been demolished. A 1965 Sanborn map notes Building B’s use as an auto painting building, with the newly erected canopy addition serving as a metal spray booth.
After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the property’s ownership changed, and many building permits were issued between 1994 and 1995 for neighboring Building A. Some of these permits illustrate work done to Building B as well. A sketch plan accompanying a 1995 building permit illustrates a new entrance to Building B located at the east elevation, and a new restroom in the southern portion of the building (previously referenced Building B was transformed from a paint shop into a storage building for office use. The adjacent spray booth was removed during this
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1826 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
time, and a concrete wall extension along 6th Court was illustrated on the site plan. In 1997, Building B’s exterior and interior were sandblasted. It is likely around this time that Building B was encased in a smooth concrete stucco finish. Evidence of Building B’s original brick walls remain today, visible at the interior of the building, at the location of the original structure. The canopy addition has since been enclosed, unifying the disparate structures. *B6. Significance (continued):
Person(s) of Historical Importance
The original building permit for Building A, 631 Colorado Avenue indicated A. B. C.
Distributing Co. as the original owner, while the original permit for Building B, 621 Colorado Avenue indicate that Glen Moyer was the original owner, and was constructed to designs by architect Frederic C. Barienbrock.
Glen Moyer was listed as the owner of the subject property on a 1947 building permit.
While an announcement for his funeral service in 2951 indicated that he was a “founder of a wholesale beverage distributing company,” there was no evidence identified to suggest that Moyer’s involvement with the distribution industry influenced the economic development of Santa Monica, nor that he was a person of historical importance.2 Frederic C. Barienbrock’s design for Building B, a loading canopy which was later modified into a garage for truck storage, does not appear to be a significant project in the larger body of his work. Building B was later modified to include doors in the 1950s, and later, completely enclosed and reconfigured at the end of the 20th century. Barientbrock was known for his residential architecture, and large-scale civic and education buildings, however, Building B is not a significant work within architect Barienbrock’s portfolio in Santa Monica.
Statement of other significance
Groutlock brick was a construction method that included reinforced metal rebar within specially designed interlocking masonry bricks, which promised to be earthquake proof due to increased strength provided by internal reinforcement. The groutlock brick method of construction was developed prior to the 1933 earthquake, after which Building A was constructed. As such, Building A was not a novel building for the incorporation of the groutlock reinforced brick construction method.
No other evidence was discovered in current research of the property to indicate other significance.
Is the structure representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent? The subject property is an example of the Commercial/Industrial Vernacular architectural style, although it is not a rare example. The Commercial Vernacular style is no longer prevalent in the City, although several good examples remain. Based upon a review of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and a windshield survey of the main corridors of Santa Monica, it appears that there are still several good examples of the Commercial Vernacular architectural style within the City of Santa Monica, as shown by Table 4. 2 “Funeral Services Held for Glen A. Moyer,” Mirror News, January 17, 1951.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1827 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Most examples of this style in Santa Monica are in the main commercial district of the city, of which the subject property is not a part. There is even a potential Main Street Commercial District of which there are many better examples of the architectural style.
Further, in comparison, the subject property appears to be a modest and altered example of the Commercial Vernacular style within the city in comparison with the many other buildings of the style previously identified by the city, as seen in the Santa Monica Historic resources Inventory and excerpted in Table 4. 174 Kinney St, commonly known as the former Famous Enterprise Fish Company, is a designated City Landmark that was originally owned by the Pacific Electric Railway who constructed a reinforced brick garage, stores and offices in 1926, which has a similar 3-bay storefront divided by four vertical pylons.3
Does the structure contribute to a potential historic district? The structures do not contribute to a potential historic district.
Landmark Criteria
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, a Commercial/Industrial Vernacular building, does not manifest the cultural and economic history of Santa Monica in its historical type and architecture. The subject property was not the first commercial or industrial building built along Colorado Avenue within the Town of Santa Monica Tract, as the original downtown commercial core was established in the late 1800s, with Colorado Avenue serving as the southern boundary. By the 1895 Sanborn map, commercial/industrial development was wellestablished along Colorado Avenue due to its close proximity to the railroad line. Most of the commercial development in downtown Santa Monica occurred during the 1920s, when the small seaside resort transformed into a metropolitan shopping district.
Development in the industrialized area where the subject property lies then included large-scale lumber, oil and power companies, in addition to smaller commercial/industrial businesses and aviation-related manufacturing which continued up through the 1940s. In the post-war period, later development along Colorado Avenue included prominent businesses associated with aerospace, aviation, and other industries such as Alpha Engineering Corporation’s electronics division, and Tavco Inc. that contributed to the atmospheric system on the Mercury capsule.
Building A was built in 1937, and Building B was built in 1941, after the commercial construction boom of the 1920s, yet prior to the post-war period of commercial/industrial development in the City. Its construction coincided with the Federal repeal of prohibition in the United States and the burgeoning beer and alcohol sales that ensued throughout Southern California and the nation. Its construction was not associated with the local patterns of commercial or industrial development in Santa Monica. The subject property has been used as a commercial alcohol beverage wholesale and distribution business, as an defense research office for Aerophysics, as an automobile body shop by Keystone Body Shop, and most recently as a film production office for Bay Films Platinum Dunes.
The subject property is a small, commercial improvement that is not representative of a 3 Architectural Resources Group, 174 Kinney Street, Santa Monica, Landmark Assessment Report, March 31, 2015, page 6.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1828 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
significant pattern of commercial or industrial development in the City. It does not exemplify the cultural and economic history of the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
While the subject property is tangentially associated with Santa Monica as a leisure/recreation destination, since the subject property distributed alcoholic beverages to local and regional restaurants and to individual buyers for consumption, those businesses/enterprises did not exist or develop further because of the distribution of alcoholic beverages from the subject property. Therefore, the subject property did not have a significant influence on economic or recreational patterns of development in Santa Monica. Furthermore, with regard to the aftermath of prohibition, the subject property was developed in response to local, regional and national legal changes, and the subject property did not bring these changes about. The headquarters of the company was in San Diego and the subject property was one of several/many distributing warehouses in the southern California/Los Angeles region and did not in and of itself have any individual significance in the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.100(a) (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
Buildings A and B do not appear to meet this criterion. As examples of Commercial/Industrial Vernacular architecture, the buildings are considered modest in comparison to other buildings in the style. They have limited decorative features except for the concrete scored pylons, parapet, and brickwork. Specifically, the property’s spatial arrangements, massing, fenestration, materials, and overall form, while functionally successful, do not reflect the deft aesthetic hand of a master designer.
Furthermore, the subject property has been substantially altered from its original appearance. The subject property lacks sufficient aesthetic or architectural value and historic integrity necessary for designation.
9.56.100(a) (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.
The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. Etta Moxley was an early property owner and occupied the property when there were previous buildings on the parcel, which were demolished prior to the construction of the existing improvements. While it was unusual for African American women to own property in the early 20th century, the extant buildings are not associated with Moxley and the existing improvements do not have any material association with her life. Current research does not indicate that this resource is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history in local, state, or national history.
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
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1829 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
The property does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Both Buildings A and B are simple examples of buildings designed in the Commercial/Industrial Vernacular style. Building B was originally constructed as a loading canopy which was later used as a garage for truck storage, and was later infilled to its current appearance. The buildings incorporate architectural features such as minimal decorative detailing, largely simple rectangular forms, horizontal parapets and concrete pylons. Modifications to both of the buildings have altered their original design, workmanship, and materials, as well as their function.
All of the original doors and windows have been removed, and contemporary metal industrial type windows have either been installed, many in the original openings, and one large new window in a former garage door opening on the west facade. Additionally, brick infill of door openings has occurred, at an original garage door opening (now the main entrance) at the two original door openings of the storefronts, and at a man door on the west elevation of Building A; and the original open bays of Building B have been entirely infilled. Furthermore, repairs were made to the brick parapet that are clearly visible on the west facade. These areas of Building A were repaired/infilled with salvaged brick to match, but exhibit differences in brick color, mortar application, and brickwork with lower quality craftsmanship than that of the original construction.
Furthermore, the brick infill and repairs were also sandblasted, so they must have been completed before the last sandblasting campaign in 1997. The building’s original brick masonry has been painted at least once and sandblasted at least twice according to building permits. This has destroyed all of the brick’s original hard-fired finish and mortar pointing which has resulted in brick-and-mortar deterioration. At least one pulverized brick was observed in the interior east corner office of the building. Later modifications include a second-story addition at the northern extent of Building A that has altered the scale and massing of Building A when viewed from the public right of way along 7th Street, and a one-story concrete wing on the west elevation at the north corner of Building A that has altered the original appearance of the west elevation of Building A when viewed from the public right of way on Colorado Avenue or 6th Court. Two of the four elevations of Building B have been altered from their original appearance by an addition to the north end of the building, and by alteration and infill of the east façade to adapt the building’s use for offices. Furthermore, the two buildings are not rare examples of the commercial vernacular building type, as shown in Table 4 above. There are many such examples in the City of Santa Monica that have more architectural merit and retain higher integrity, such as 174 Kinney Street, a similar reinforced brick warehouse built in 1926. There are two examples of utilitarian industrial buildings in the Santa Monica inventory, 2920 and 2944 Nebraska Avenue; 2920 Nebraska Avenue appears to be a similar example to the subject property that was constructed in 1946. Therefore, the subject building does not appear to satisfy this criterion as a rare, extant example of a Commercial/Industrial Vernacular historical property type.
Buildings A and B do not appear to be eligible as examples of a method of construction.
Building A was constructed with groutlock brick, as indicated on the original building permit. It is possible that Building B, which was originally constructed as a canopy and was later used as a garage for truck storage, was also constructed with groutlock brick based upon physical observation of the brickwork by ESA, and documentary evidence
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1830 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
as the architect of record, Frederic C. Barienbrock was evidently familiar with the building system as evidenced by his participation in a groutlock brick competition as included in a 1934 newspaper article. Groutlock brick was a construction method that included reinforced metal rebar within specially designed interlocking masonry bricks, which promised to be earthquake proof due to increased strength provided by internal reinforcement.4 Simons Brick Company, the company that produced groutlock brick operated from 1906 to about 1952. While Building A of the subject property was documented on the original building permit as constructed of groutlock brick and concrete framing, our research does not indicate groutlock brick became a highly utilized, important construction material in Santa Monica as a result of its application at this building. Further, the use of reinforced brick masonry has been recorded internationally for over 175 years, and has been adapted to a wide variety of applications throughout its history, and as such groutlock brick was just one reinforced brick masonry system of many that have been implemented over time.5 The project was not published in any architectural or engineering journals, nor was its construction method mentioned in any local or regional newspapers.6 Although other examples of reinforced brick masonry walls with concrete framing are found in Santa Monica, this was a ubiquitous construction method in southern California and in the United States and the use of reinforced brick and concrete framing at the subject property did not have a significant influence on the local, regional or national building industry. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
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.
The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. Building A is not a significant or representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect, as there was no one listed for the design of the building on the original building permit.
Santa Monica architect Frederic C. Barienbrock was listed as the architect on the original 1941 building permit for Building B, which was originally permitted and constructed as a canopy structure, which was later converted into a garage for truck storage. While Barienbrock was an established architect by the 1940s, he was best known for his civic and institutional work, some of which still remains today including the Modern style Santa Monica County Courthouse, and the vernacular Modern apartment building at 827-829 6th Street. As originally constructed, Building B included three brick exterior walls, with a fourth elevation comprised of open bay for truck parking. The 4 “Awards Made in Residential Design Contest,” Los Angeles Times, November 25, 1934. 5 Brick Industry Association, Technical Notes 17 – Reinforced Brick Masonry – Introduction Reissued Oct. 1996 (https://www.gobrick.com/docs/default-source/read-research-documents/technicalnotes/17-reinforced-brick-masonry--- introduction.pdf?sfvrsn=0, accessed 10/15/2021).
6 A search of the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals for articles or publications about groutlock brick and 631 Colorado Avenue yielded no results. A search for “reinforced brick” more generally yielded two articles: “Products and Practice: R-BM Reinforced Brick Masonry,” Architectural Forum, January 1939, 367–70 and “Reinforced Brick Walls for Surface Shelters: Home Security Bulletin,” Builder, January 1941, 243–45. Several other articles on the work of Modern architect Eladio Dieste in Uruguay also appeared in this search. None of these articles appear to be directly relevant to groutlock brick or the property at 631 Colorado Avenue.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1831 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
building has been highly modified over time and is not a significant or representative example of the work of Frederic C. Barienbrock. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
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 resource does not appear to meet this criterion. At the time of construction, the subject property was built as a distribution center for alcoholic beverages, in the industrial part of the City, among several large plants and other commercial businesses and the building fell into a common pattern of early 20th century industrial development.
The brick structures are located on a corner of a commercial-industrial area, abut a busy thoroughfare and are both largely obscured by bushes. It is a simple, utilitarian property with few distinguishing features other than its concrete pylons. As such, the subject property does not appear to have a unique location, singular physical characteristic, nor is an established visual feature of a neighborhood or of the City.
Structure of Merit
9.56.080 (a) The structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory The resource meets this criterion as it is identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
9.56.080 (b) The Structure is a minimum of 50- years of age and meets one of the following criteria.
The resource meets this criterion as Building A was constructed in 1937 making it 84 years of age, and Building B was constructed in 1941, making it 80 years of age.
9.56.080 (b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historic type.
The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. The structure is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historic type. The resource does not have any distinctive design details and ornamental details are limited to concrete scoring at Building A, and concrete stepped pyramidal capitals at both buildings. Furthermore, it is a common form for Commercial/Industrial Vernacular buildings built in the early 20th century, and is not a unique design or type, nor does it have any distinctive details.
There are also many examples of Commercial Vernacular buildings in Santa Monica that are better-designed, as previously discussed above and included in Table 4 above.
9.56.080 (b)(2) The Structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
The resource does not meet this criterion. As stated previously, the structure is not a rare example of the building type, as discussed above and illustrated in Table 4 above.
There are many such examples in the City of Santa Monica, specifically in the Main
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1832 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Street Commercial District as well as 174 Kinney Street (1926), and 2920 Nebraska Avenue (1946).
9.56.080 (b)(3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The resource does not appear to meet this criterion as it is not a contributor to a potential historic district.
Historic Integrity
As Buildings A and B have consistently been owned by the same owners, and both buildings have similarly undergone modifications at the same time. Alterations most notably occurred upon ownership changes when the buildings were modified to suit new uses. As originally constructed, Building A included two storefronts within three bays along Colorado Avenue, while Building B included multiple open bays in order to serve as a truck garage.
The subject property retains integrity of location, as the buildings have not moved over time.
The historic setting has been altered as the original entrance to the subject property was formerly along Colorado Avenue; and as the early auxiliary buildings that were once a part of the A. B. C. Distributing Company have since been demolished; and as a new entrance was created in the western portion of the site, that also includes a new metal automated gate, whereas the original entrance to the subject property was off Colorado Avenue. An additional metal gate with new concrete pylons and a lower concrete wall stretches across the south side of the property from Building A to Building B, and mature plants cover the formerly exposed Colorado Avenue elevations of both buildings. Further, the surrounding setting has been altered with the demolition of smaller buildings, and the construction of large multi-family apartment buildings. The subject property is presently bordered by mixed development: multi-family housing to the north and east, and both large- and small-scale commercial developments and some multi-family housing to the south, and west. A low-rise brick commercial building is located on the lot immediately to the east of the subject property on the east corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street. To the west of the subject property, across the alley, is a block of lowrise commercial buildings on Colorado Avenue that extends to the corner of Colorado Avenue and 6th Street. As such, the subject property lacks integrity of property setting.
The original design of both buildings has been substantially altered as all of the fenestration has been either replaced or altered, the entrances have been reconfigured, and the exterior and interior surfaces sandblasted twice. All that remains intact is the brick, parapet (repaired), and arched wood truss roof. The original wood and glass storefronts on the south facade located along Colorado Avenue have been removed and infilled with industrial type metal windows that substantially detract from the original design intent of Building A, and a new recessed entrance in a former garage opening was constructed toward the center of Building A’s west elevation. A contemporary addition at the ground-floor and at the second floor has altered the foot print and massing of Building A’s design.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1833 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Building B was originally designed as an open-bay garage structure, and underwent later changes to include sliding doors, and later, to include an addition at the north end, expanding the building’s footprint. The east façade was reconfigured to adapt the building for office use, and a new entrance and windows were installed, and the entire building covered in smooth concrete stucco to create a uniform modern industrial look.
As a result of substantial alterations, the subject property lacks integrity of design from its original construction.
Furthermore, as originally constructed, Building A was built utilizing –the groutlock reinforced brick system. It is also possible that groutlock brick was also used at Building B. However, heavy sandblasting of the original bricks and mortar pointing (exterior and interior), infill former door and garage openings, and parapet repairs, have substantially detracted from the integrity of materials and workmanship of the subject property. Additionally, nearly the entire exterior of Building B has been covered in smooth stucco leaving only a portion of the brick surface visible at the south elevation. On the interior, the wood trusses and open-beam ceilings have also been sandblasted and no longer have their original sawn wood finish. Therefore, the subject property lacks integrity of materials and workmanship.
However, the subject property still retains its overall historic feeling and association with the 1930s commercial/industrial development along Colorado Avenue from the post-Depression, pre-World War II years, although as noted, the property is not a unique example of such development.
Overall, the subject property lacks historic integrity.
Further, there is no remaining historic significance for the former structures that were once occupied and owned by previous owner, Etta Moxley, as all previous improvements associated with her life and ownership of the subject property were demolished prior to the construction of the existing improvements.
*B12. References (continued):
“A. B. C. Day Oct. 6th,” Newspaper advertisement, The Napa Valley Register, October 5, 1933. “A Modular House by Frederic Barienbrock, Architect and Eugene Memmier, Designer.” Arts & Architecture, April 1952, Vol. 69, No. 4, 30-31.
“Aerophysics Development Corporation. A Studebaker-Packard Subsidiary: Santa Monica, Calif.” Jet Propulsion Archive, Volume 26, Number 5, May 1956.
American Institute of Architects, Application for Membership, “Frederic Charles Barienbrock,” Application No. 4070, 1926. [AIA Historical Directory: https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/]. “Awards Made in Residential Design Contest,” Los Angeles Times, November 25, 1934.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1834 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
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, California:
Hennessey + Ingalls, 2001.
“Beach City Growing at Rapid Rate,” Los Angeles Times, January 21, 1923. “Beautiful Bay District Grows,” Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1925.
Certificate of Dissolution, Corporation Number D-0342151, Keystone Body Shop, Inc., signed by directors H. George Nojima and Joanne Nojima on October 10, 1997, and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of California on October 27, 1997.
Charleston, James H. “Looff’s Hippodrome,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, November 1984.
“East Side Adds New Plant,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1933.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Version. https://www.britannica.com “Funeral Services Held for Glen A. Moyer,” Mirror News, January 17, 1951. “$520,000 High School Building Completed,” Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1956. “Glen Alvin Moyer.” U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards.” 1917-1918, Ancestry.com. “Glen Alvin Moyer,” U.S., World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942, Ancestry.com. “Glenn A (Zora) mgr A B C Distributing Co.” Bay Cities Directory, Published by Los Angeles Directory Co. 1938.
“Glen Moyer.” U. S. Federal Census. 1930.
Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings. American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009.
Hand, Ryan. “Aztec Brewing Company,” Chicano Park Museum website, https://www.chicanoparkmuseum.org/logan-heights-archival-project/aztec-brewery/, n.d.
Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group. “City of Santa Monica: Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement.” Prepared for City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, 2018.
IMDb, “Michael Bay: Biography,” IMDb website,
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000881/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm, accessed 10-13-21. “John A. Moyer.” U. S. Federal Census, 1940.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1835 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Kaplan, Sheldon. “A Look Back: San Diego Beer History from 1868 to 1953,” West Coaster, September 13, 2018.
Liwag, Ernie and Matthew Schiff. “San Diego’s Craft Brew Culture.” The Journal of San Diego History, 59, nos. 1 and 2, Winter/Spring 2013.
López López, Margarita. “Restoring History, Brick By Brick,” Latinx Talk, 2020.
Moore, Mark A. The Jan & Dean Record: A Chronology of Studio Sessions, Live Performances and Chart Positions, 2016.
“More New Industries,” Los Angeles Times, December 9, 1904. “Nation Consumes Floods of Beer on ‘Opening Day,” Daily News, April 8, 1933.
Nelson White Architectural History + Preservation. “Villa Ruchello: A History, 609 E. Channel Road, Santa Monica, CA.” Prepared for the Agency, n.d.
“News Behind the News,” The Pasadena Post, March 22, 1934.
Newspaper Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1925.
Newspaper Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1933.
Newspaper Entry, Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1903.
Parrish, John, “The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake and The Field Act, Improving the Design and Building Standards for California Schools.” California Department of Conservation, n.d.
PCR Services and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Preservation Element, 2002.
Pitt, Leonard and Dale Pitt. Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1997. “Prohibition, United States History [1920-1933]: Repeal,” Encyclopedia Britannica website, https://www.britannica.com/event/Prohibition-United-States-history-1920-1933/Repeal. “Santa Monica Bay New Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1911. “Santa Monica Dedicates New County Building,” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1951.
Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004). "The Pasadena News: Proceedings of the Council in Regular Session," Los Angeles Evening Express, February 22, 1892.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1836 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 621-631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Turner, Fred. “Revisiting Earthquake Lessons –Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.” Structural Engineers Association of California, 2020.
Turner, Fred. “Seventy Years of the Riley Act and its effect on California’s Building Stock.” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2004. “Unique Brick Stirs Interest: Inventor Explains New Masonry Style,” Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1933.
6.B.f
Packet Pg. 1837 Attachment: Property Owner's Historic Assessment Report (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min))
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 22ENT-0015 Appeal of Landmark Designation 21ENT-0125 ADDRESS: 631 Colorado Avenue
APPELLANT: 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal of the Landmarks Commission designation 21ENT-0125 for the designation of the building at the corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street and for the property as a Landmark Parcel..
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2022 AT 6:30 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chamber, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the public hearing via email to [email protected] or via mail to City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, California 90401. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.
You may also comment in person at the City Council hearing. Please check the agenda for more detailed instructions on how to comment in person.
Address your comments to: City Clerk
Re: 22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Avenue Landmark Designation Appeal VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA MAIL: 1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, 90401
MORE INFORMATION: If you want more information about this project, please contact Stephanie Reich at (310) 458-2200 ext.6490, or by e-mail at [email protected]. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will be made to provide the requested accommodation. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines serve City Hall and the Civic Center area. The Expo Line terminus is located at Colorado Avenue and Fourth Street, and is a short walk to City Hall. Public parking is available in front of City Hall, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL : Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.
6.B.g
Packet Pg. 1838 Attachment: 631 Colorado Appeal Hearing Notice April 12 (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 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 22ENT-0015 LOCATED AT 631 COLORADO AVENUE
AS A CITY LANDMARK OR STRUCTURE OF MERIT
SECTION I. 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 a Landmark, with a revised application submitted on January 9, 2022.The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on January 10, 2022 found that the subject property at 631 Colorado Avenue and building located at the corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street met one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100. On January 20, 2022, 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc. 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 631 Colorado Avenue 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 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
6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1839 Attachment: STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 2 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, 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 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
6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1840 Attachment: STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 3 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 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 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
6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1841 Attachment: STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 4 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. STRUCTURE OF MERIT CRITERIA
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.
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. Therefore, the property does not appear significant as a Structure of Merit under this criterion.
6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1842 Attachment: STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 5 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
Attest:
Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary
6.B.h
Packet Pg. 1843 Attachment: STOA22ENT-0015 631 Colorado Council Appeal STOA [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 1
Appellant/Property Owner: 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc.
Address: 631 Colorado Avenue
Applicant: Santa Monica Conservancy
SUPPLEMENT TO APPEAL FORM
The subject property does not merit designation as a City Landmark. The composition of the Landmarks Commission’s 4-2 vote (with one recusal) is telling. The Commission’s Architect Historian (i.e., Dr. Kenneth Breisch1) voted against and spoke against the designation, as did Commissioner Amy Green, who is a Professional Associate with the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works (AIC) and holds a certificate in historic preservation from the University of Southern California and a Master of Arts degree from Antioch University.
Licensed architect Richard Brand was unable to participate due to his residence’s proximity to the subject property.
Dr. Breisch criticized the Landmarks Commission’s motion to designate:
Yes, I would say I’m not very happy with this, the way it’s moving forward, for a number of reasons. I think there is a major question on integrity that’s lacking here. And that I don’t think the building really reflects--I don’t know what it reflects. I guess it reflects maybe the whole scope of the history of the building, but I don’t think that’s what we’re here to designate.
I’m a little confused by the statement of significance in terms of the reinforced masonry construction, which I don’t think has been proven one way or another. And I went and looked very closely at it, and I couldn’t figure out exactly what was going on, I have to say. And that was in no small part because the building’s been sandblasted twice. And in terms of the significance of materials and workmanship, for example, it’s not there.
So, if we’re looking at this building as an example of a particular type of masonry construction, it doesn’t exist anymore.
Sandblasting is really a major problem in terms of not just 1 Dr. Breisch is founder, and then served as Director, of the USC Graduate Programs in Historical Preservation and is an associate professor at USC’s School of Architecture and the Dornsife Department of American Studies and Ethnicity. He is a past president of the Society of Architectural Historians. He has served on the Board of The Vernacular Architecture Forum. He holds a Ph.D. in Art History from the University of Michigan.
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1844 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 2
designation, but of course, the way you treat buildings after they’ve been designated. And this thing is just been decimated.
And it’s been repointed to the point where it’s just pretty disgusting workmanship.
So, if we’re sort of mixing these things together, there are new windows, the entry’s been moved and really there’s no integrity whatsoever to this structure in terms of the masonry, and whether it’s groutlock or not, which I really am doubtful about. So, the thing we’re designating should really reflect something of the history of the place. And if it’s been so altered with sandblasting in the ‘50s and changing windows and moving entryways, then I just don’t see that working for me.
I am absolutely sympathetic to recognizing the earlier AfricanAmerican neighborhood and community that was there, but I don’t think this is really the place to do it. It could maybe be added, but we’ve gone through this before I think. There’s a wonderful memorial to Biddy Mason in Downtown LA, but that’s not a historic landmark. It commemorates what was there and is no longer there, that’s been erased, and that’s what we’ve got here.
So, that bothers me too, I think, to be recognizing that.
With all due respect Commissioner Sloan, I think that there were previous occupants before the African-Americans were there. And I think we have a park just down the street that recognizes that as well.
It’s just bothersome to me that we keep layering on these things that don’t really reflect the nature of the Landmark Ordinance and what it’s intended to do. So, that’s my problem.
To use a real important architectural technical term, it’s cute. But I don’t think it rises to the level of being a landmark. I don’t think it rises to that level.
Commissioner Green also criticized the motion to designate this building as a Landmark:
Thank you, Commissioner Breisch. You pretty much said what was in my head.
In terms of the sandblasting, it not only alters the appearance, but it actually alters the structural integrity of the materials. It weakens them. So, we’re talking about landmarking something that is not anywhere near what it was when it was built.
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1845 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 3
And the other piece of it that has been bothering me is this association with the African-American neighborhood, because the building itself, the existing structure, has nothing to do with who lived there before. And so, if we’re commemorating the
predecessors, I don’t understand what that has to do with the structure itself.
And so, I’m also having a hard time supporting this. And I think it’s a beautiful building. I like the building itself. That was my feeling when I went and looked at it yesterday. I was attracted to it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it rises to the standards of designation. So, it’s cute, as Commissioner Breisch said. I like the details, but again, that doesn’t help me want to landmark it. That’s it.
Vice Chair Breisch and Commissioner Green therefore made two legally important points. First, it is indisputable that the current building has been substantially altered since its original construction as a warehouse, and to the extent the basis for the property’s nomination is the use of so-called groutlock brick, all of the brick has been sandblasted beyond recognition. Second, the Commission’s vote was largely motivated not by an assessment of the existing improvements on the subject property but by a desire to in some form recognize an African American resident (Etta Moxley). While such recognition no doubt has virtue outside of the context of the Landmarks Ordinance, there is no basis under the Landmarks Ordinance as currently written to designate the unrelated existing building for preservation based on association with Ms. Moxley, who never owned, lived in or worked in the current buildings.
Professional Evaluations by Credentialed Experts
The City’s independent architectural history consultants at GPA Consulting similarly concluded, based on their thorough research and evaluation, that the property does not meet any of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark and does not warrant designation as a Landmark:
Conclusions
The property at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to be eligible under any of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria, nor does it appear to merit recognition as a Structure of Merit. The
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1846 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 4
property was identified as individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation for conveying patterns of industrial development in the Downtown neighborhood of Santa Monica.
However, during the additional analysis conducted for this report, it was revealed that the grouping of industrial buildings at 631 Colorado Avenue has been modified and does not have an
important association with a significant aspect of Santa Monica’s industrial history. In the event the property had retained its original design and configuration, the property as a whole would still be an example of a ubiquitous, industrial property type in Santa Monica and Southern California that does not possess the distinctive characteristics of a specific style or property type. Research did not reveal any other potential significant associations with important persons or events, or the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of Santa Monica, and the property does not appear likely to contribute to a potential historic district.
Therefore, GPA concludes that neither building on the property appears to warrant designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
(GPA Landmark Assessment Report, p. 21.)
Furthermore, Margarita Jerabek-Bray,2 Ph.D., of ESA--a consultant whom the City often retains but who was retained this time by the property owner--also reached the same conclusion: “[T]he property located at 631 Colorado Avenue does not appear to meet any of the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Criteria.” (ESA’s City Landmarks Assessment and Evaluation Report, p.
88.) And Ms. Jerabek further found that, due to extensive alterations to the building, including sandblasting of the brick surfaces at least twice, as well as: alteration or replacement of the windows, reconfiguration of the entrances, and alteration of the setting: “the subject property lacks historic integrity.” (ESA Report, p. 87.)
And now a third expert has evaluated the property. Like the other two experts, Jenna Snow writes: “It is my professional opinion that the subject property does not meet any of the City 2 Ms. Jaerabek-Bray received her Ph.D. in Art History from UCLA, as well as a Master of Arts in Architectural History from the University of Virginia and a Bachelors of Arts in Art History from Oberlin College. Her qualifications meet and exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in History, Architectural History and Archaeology.
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1847 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 5
Landmark criteria set forth in the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance.” (Snow Report, p. 1.) In support of her conclusion, Ms. Snow explains:
As demonstrated in the earlier reports, as well as this memorandum, the Main Building at the subject property is not significant under criterion 1. As an industrial building . . . [i]t was not the earliest industrial building in the area, nor is it the last.
None of the business that occupied the building were shown to have made significant contributions to their specific fields while occupying the subject property. Finally, there are no extant buildings at the subject property associated with Etta Moxley.
Under criterion 4, while the building may have used groutlock brick construction, this is not a historically significant method of construction. Further, there is no evidence that its use in the Main Building influenced its use in any other building activities in the area. The Main Building at 631 Colorado Boulevard does not rise to the level of significance to warrant designation as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. (Snow Report, p. 11.)
Ms. Snow also writes:
631 Colorado Boulevard has undergone substantial changes since it was constructed in 1937 and does not retain integrity . . . The subject property does not resemble its historic appearance, neither from 1937 nor from the 1960s. Even if the property were to be found to have significance, it does not retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance. (Snow Report, pp. 10-11.)
As noted in the City’s 2018 HRI Update Survey Report:
In addition to meeting any or all of the designation criteria . . . the National Park Service requires properties to possess historic integrity. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as “the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period.” (City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Aug. 9, 2018) p. 26, citing to National Register Bulletin 16A.)
All of the experts agree that the building’s integrity is highly degraded. The City’s expert found:
While the Main Building retains some aspects of physical integrity, its overall integrity has been diminished through exterior
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1848 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 6
modifications, including two additions, sandblasting, and the introduction of contemporary new elements. The Auxiliary Building does not retain integrity as it has been largely reconstructed, and the integrity of the site overall has been lost through the demolition of buildings and structures associated with the alcohol distribution operation, reconfiguration of its street access, enclosure with a privacy fence, and contemporary paving and landscaping for the surface parking lot. As a result, the property no longer retains sufficient physical integrity to reflect its original use.
(GPA Report, p. 21; emphasis added.)
This building was evaluated numerous times during the City’s periodic historic resource assessments, but it was never identified as a potential resource until the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update. That longstanding omission from the City’s HRI is telling. It’s not as though the building suddenly become for significant. It has never been an important building.
Housing Element Designation as Suitable Site for Housing Additionally, the subject property is specifically identified on the City’s October 2021 Suitable Sites Inventory (“SSI”) as a site highly likely for housing development. (See 6 th Cycle 2021-2029
Housing Element, App. F, p. F-68.) Moreover, this site was also identified in the prior Housing Element’s Suitable Sites Inventory. (5th Cycle 2013-2021 Housing Element.) And as such (i.e., as a Category 2 Site), the property was “re-evaluated to determine suitability for housing potential” in the Housing Element Update. (2021-2029 Housing Element, App. F, p. F-8.) Per its listing on the SSI, this site is categorized as having “high potential” for housing development. (Id.)
According to the City’s newest Housing Element (submitted to the State Department of Housing & Community Development in November), all such sites were “filtered” to exclude “parcels with existing Landmarks or Historic Resources.” (Id. at p. F-1.) In fact, this property is one of the parcels that the City has already represented to the State Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) at least twice has having high potential for development for housing. And indeed, consistent with that evaluation, the property was under contract for sale to a housing developer until the Landmarks Commission’s vote.
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1849 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 7
And now, with the ink barely dry on the page, the Landmarks Commission has designated the property as a City Landmark. Indeed, the Landmark Application was filed on May 20, 2021— almost five months before the 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted, and even before the Suitable Sites Inventory was published on June 2, 2021. Indeed, Planning Commissioner Fresco, together with her colleagues on the Planning Commission, endorsed the Suitable Sites Inventory as part of the Housing Element Update. (See Resolution # 21-011 (PCS), § 2, stating in part:
“Based on substantial evidence set forth in Chapter 4, Summary of Land Available for Housing, and Appendix F, Suitable Site Inventory Report of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the existing uses on nonvacant sites identified in the SSI to accommodate lower income housing are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the Housing Element” and further representing that “Parcels with existing uses that were not likely to be discontinued during the planning period were not examined for suitability, as follows: . . Parcels with existing historic resources.”) Commissioner Fresco and her fellow Planning Commissioners approved that Resolution while this very landmark application was pending. See also Gov’t Code § 65583.3(a) (“The local government shall ensure, to the best of its knowledge, that the inventory of land submitted to the department [of Housing & Community Development] is true and correct.”).
The City Council’s role on appeal is to take a bigger picture view of the landmark nomination, in as much as the Landmarks Ordinance provides that even for properties meeting any of the six criteria for designation (which the credentialed and qualified experts agree it does not), the City has the discretion to approve or deny the nomination:
For purposes of this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission may [not “must”] 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 . . .
(Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.100(A).)
This site’s longstanding suitability (since at least 2013) and “high potential” for housing development should trump the Landmark Designation Application on appeal. Designation of this
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1850 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 8
site as a Landmark Parcel undercuts the credibility of the City’s Housing Element and its SSI analysis.
Etta Moxley/Historical Site Issue
Also, it is important to note that the Landmarks Ordinance does not provide for designation of historical sites, separate and apart from existing buildings and improvements. Thus, any and all references to Etta Moxley are completely irrelevant to consideration of this property as a potential Landmark. In this regard, the designation of landmarks in Santa Monica is reserved for buildings, not sites:
“Any building, structure, place, site, work of art, landscape feature, plantlife, life-form, scenic condition or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.”
(Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.030(I) & (J).)
Without discounting the historical significance of Ms. Moxley, the law applicable to this property’s nomination has no place for designating a building as a City Landmark when the building being designated did not even exist at the time of the historic person’s residence at the property. The Landmarks Commission completely ignored the counsel of the City’s Deputy City Attorney in this regard:
Deputy City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln reminded the
Commission that their review must be based on existing
improvements to the property, not improvements that are no longer extant.
(Landmarks Commission Meeting Minutes (Jan. 10, 2022), p. 7.) Here, the record is clear that the housing that Ms. Moxley once occupied no longer exists on the subject property. (See Nomination Application (“One cottage and a garage from the Moxley period of ownership remained [when the current buildings were constructed] on the north-west edge of the parcel. The other cottages were demolished.”).) This fact is also evidenced in the City’s expert’s report:
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1851 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Page | 9
“Since the residential and outbuildings related to this cultural and social history [with Etta Moxley] are no longer extant, the existing buildings on the property do not share the same association.” (GPA Report, p. 16.)
Thus, Finding #1, as relied upon by the Landmarks Commission for this designation, is completely misguided:
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
That said, the appellant property owner has no objection to a commemorative marker or other interpretive installation paying respect to Ms. Moxley and her achievements.
No Structure of Merit Application
There is no structure of merit application, therefore it is unnecessary to evaluate those criteria.
That said, the consultants for the City and the property owner have both independently confirmed that the property does not meet the criteria for designation as a structure of merit.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the findings for denial as previously set forth in the Staff Report to the Landmarks Commission.
6.B.i
Packet Pg. 1852 Attachment: 631 Colorado_ Supplement to Appeal Form(15050000.1) [Revision 1] (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Jenna Snow ● Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected] Memorandum
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Kenneth L. Kutcher
Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozel, LLP
41250 Sixth Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
FROM: Jenna Snow
RE: 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
Introduction
The Santa Monica Conservancy filed a City Landmark Designation application for the property located at 631 Colorado Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 4291-023-009) in Santa Monica, California (“subject property” or “property”) in May 2021. That nomination was heard by the Landmarks Commission on January 10, 2022, who voted 4-2 to designate the property, following a recusal by one of the Commissioners. Despite that the property was designated, arguments offered in support of the Landmark nomination are incomplete and misleading and do not adequately support findings of significance.
The hearing record includes detailed reports from two different independent historic preservation consulting firms that professionally evaluated the nomination and both of those reports concluded that the subject property does not satisfy any of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark.
Furthermore, the City staff report prepared for the January 2022 Landmarks Commission hearing recommended that the application for designation should be denied.
I have been asked to render an opinion as well. To that end, I have conducted two site visits, carefully reviewed the nomination and two independent evaluations and the findings of the Landmarks Commission. In addition, I have also consulted various brick experts, examined additional historic photographs and the 2001 architectural plans that guided the extensive remodeling that occurred in 2002. It is my professional opinion that the subject property does not meet any of the City Landmark criteria set forth in the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance. My resume is attached.
The following memorandum summarizes my research and analysis on which my opinion is based.
City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance The City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1974 and allows the Landmarks Commission to designate City Landmarks that meet one or more of the following criteria:1
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
1 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.56.100(A).
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1853 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 2
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.
The Santa Monica Landmarks Commission does not have jurisdiction over the interior spaces of designated Landmarks, with the exception of interior spaces regularly open to the public.2 Previous Evaluations
Historic resource surveys of the City in 1983 and 20113 did not identify the subject property, which indicates the property did not appear eligible as a historic resource at the time of those surveys. It was not until the 2018 Historic Resources Survey update (2018 HRI survey) that the subject property was eventually identified as a potential Santa Monica Landmark. In doing so, the 2018 HRI survey identified the architectural style of the subject property as “industrial vernacular” and described its potential significance as follows:
631 Colorado 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.4 Subsequently, the subject property has been more thoroughly assessed in the landmark designation application and the two assessment reports prepared by the two qualified preservation experts. In January 2022, GPA Consulting prepared a “Landmark Assessment Report” for the City of Santa Monica to render a professional opinion about whether the property appeared eligible for designation. Based on research and analysis, the GPA report concluded that the subject property “does not appear eligible under any of the Santa Monica Landmark Criteria.”5 Preservation experts at ESA also prepared a “City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report” for the owner of the subject property, dated December 2021, and came to the same conclusion that the property does not meet any of the six criteria for designation.
It is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, the HRI Update survey that considered several thousand properties and on the other hand, a site-specific assessment report focused on a single property, such as those prepared by GPA and ESA. As explained in National Register Bulletin #24, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: a basis for preservation planning,” a reconnaissance-level survey is defined as “a ‘once over lightly’ inspection of an area, most useful for characterizing its resources 2 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.56.110. 3 Additional historic resource survey efforts took place in 1986, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2004, and 2006. 4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “Appendix B: 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update – Individual Resources,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica, January 2017, 46. 5 GPA Consulting, “Landmark Assessment Report: 631 Colorado Avenue,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica, January 3, 2021, 21.
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1854 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 3
in general and for developing a basis for deciding how to organize and orient more detailed survey efforts.” In contrast, an assessment report is a “close and careful look” at one particular property.6 Landmarks Commission Findings
The Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission (or “STOA”) regarding the January 2022 Landmark nomination correctly describes that the subject property consists of two buildings: a Main Building, constructed in 1937, and an Auxiliary Building, constructed in 1941. The STOA identify only the Main Building as significant, finding eligibility under two of the six criteria (i.e., Criteria 1 and 4).
7 Under criterion 1, three factors of significance are relied upon for designation of the Main Building:
1. “the first light industrial commercial building in the south-east portion of downtown”
2. “representative of the City’s [economic development] evolution from the 1930s to the present day”
3. “association with Etta Vena Moxley (1870-1950), a dedicated life-long leader in the African American Women’s Club movement”
Under criterion 4, the Main Building at the subject property was found significant for its use of groutlock brick and as “the only known example of post-Long Beach Earthquake transitional engineering techniques for ensuring that brick and mortar structures had seismic integrity.” Analysis
As previously noted, although lengthy, the Landmark nomination relies upon a flawed analysis, and got bogged down with many irrelevant details that distract from a true assessment of significance.
The following provides a more direct and clear analysis for each of the above listed areas of potential significance.
6 Anne Derry, H. Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull, and Jan Thorman, National Register Bulletin #24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: a basis for preservation planning, (National Park Service, 1977), revised by Patricia L. Parker in 1985. 7 The STOA are muddled, given their unsupported reference to “two contributing structures (page 1),” while at the same time clearly stating that “The Designation includes the structure at the corner of 7th Street and Colorado Avenue, excluding all other stricture[s] on the parcel” (page 4).
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1855 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 4
The subject property was not the first light industrial commercial building in the south-east portion of downtown
The terminology “light industrial commercial building” is unclear and vague. It is more accurate to describe the Main Building typology as a pre-World War II industrial development and eliminate use of the word “commercial.” While there may have been some commercial function through direct beer sales at the property, the primary function was as a warehouse, which is generally considered to constitute an industrial use. A visit to the site clearly shows that this warehouse building was constructed fur use as an industrial building with a simple façade, nearly devoid of decoration, unarticulated side elevations, and a large open floor interior space. The architecture is unremarkable and relatively nondescript, best described as “industrial vernacular” as it was in the 2018 HRI.
Contrary to the Landmark nomination, the Main Building was not the first industrial property of its kind in the industrial area of Santa Monica. While the Landmark nomination ascribes the property’s location as the south-east portion of Downtown, it is more accurate to describe this portion of Colorado Avenue as part of an industrial zone adjacent to the former railroad, and now the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10).
Figure 1 Historic aerial photograph, view east, subject property outlined red, note industrial buildings along Colorado Ave. and south (UCLA Air Photo Archives, 1965)
Figure 2: Detail of historic aerial photograph at left, west elevation of subject property, note two large openings (UCLA Air Photo Archives, 1965)
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 5
As seen in Sanborn maps, Lincoln Boulevard, contained a mix of commercial and industrial buildings.8 Also seen in historic aerial photographs, this industrial zone, which came to include Colorado Avenue, contained many low-scale industrial buildings (see above Figure 3, for example).
These primary sources documenting this industrial zone are further supported by the 2018 HRI survey, which describes industrial development primarily adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. At the time, this area provided means of easy transport of raw materials and finished goods in and out of the city. As described in the historic context of the 2018 HRI survey, “the effects of the early rail line routing can still be seen on the landscape today through zoning and the continued concentration of light industry uses in the same locations as they were historically.”9 The Main Building at the subject property was not the earliest example of an industrial development around Colorado Avenue, nor is it the last remaining example. Developed well before the subject property, the 1918 Sanborn map shows the Bassett & Nebeker Lumber Yard directly across the street at the southwest corner of Colorado Avenue and 7th Street. Among other examples identified in the 2018 HRI survey are Arden Farms Co / Santa Monica Ice Cream Co. at 1545 12th Street (1928), Alpha Engineering at 2902 Colorado Avenue (1938), and Crescent Cleaners at 1415 Colorado Avenue (1955).
Both primary and secondary sources place the subject property at the northern edge of industrial development in Santa Monica. The subject property was not unique but simply one of many such buildings contributing to the larger trend of industrial development. The subject property has not been shown to be the first or only industrial building in this area of the city and therefore is not eligible under criterion 1.
8 Attachment C of the ESA Report includes pertinent Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. 9 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “Historic Resources Inventory Update – Historic Context Statement,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica, January 2017, 236.
Figure 3: Historic aerial photograph, view northwest, subject property outlined red, note industrial buildings along Colorado Ave. and south (UCLA Air Photo Archives, 1966)
Figure 4: Detail of historic aerial photograph at left, south and east elevations of subject property, note original configuration of south elevation (UCLA Air Photo Archives, 1965)
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 6
The subject property is not representative of the City’s economic development from the 1930s to the present day
As detailed in the Landmark nomination, as well as the two consultant reports, the following outlines the history of occupants of the subject property:
1937-1953: A.B.C. Distribution Company
1955-1956: Aerophysics Development Corporation
1967-1994: Keystone Autobody Shop
1994-present: various film production offices
None of these occupants appears to have made any significant contributions to their specific industries while occupying the subject property. As described more fully below, the subject property was constructed as a beer distribution warehouse for A.B.C. Distribution Company, a function it retained from 1937 until approximately 1953. Subsequently, the property was occupied by the Aerophysics Development Corporation for a little less than two years. It was one of three buildings the company used simultaneously in this period, and it is not known how the subject property was used by the company. In 1956, Aerophysics Development Corporation became a subsidiary of Studebaker-Packard and moved its headquarters to Santa Barbara. While the company appears to have made advances in the aerospace industry, the subject property does not appear to have been the location of any significant innovation. Between 1967 and 1994, the subject property was occupied by Keystone Autobody Shop, a full-service automobile repair facility. The Landmark nomination provides minimal additional information on Keystone Autobody Shop, and it can be inferred that the company did not innovate anything new in the areas of car repair or service. None of these businesses is noteworthy. (A.B.C. Distribution Company is discussed in greater detail below.) A building’s occupancy by various diverse businesses that may be representative of the types of industries prevalent in Santa Monica over time does not constitute historic significance. Because there is no written guidance on Santa Monica Landmark eligibility, extensive written guidance provided by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places is typically relied upon. National Register guidance states,
“Mere association with historic events…is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify…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.”10
While the subject property was used by a variety of owners, there is no evidence that any of the businesses made significant contributions to their specific fields while occupying the subject property. Therefore, the subject property is not eligible under criterion 1 for its contribution to the economic development of Santa Monica.
• A.B.C. Brewing Company is not a rare or significant example of industrial development in Santa Monica
As described in the landmark designation application, 631 Colorado Avenue was constructed as a distribution warehouse for Aztec Brewing Company in 1937, four years after Prohibition was lifted.
Aztec Brewing Company was established in Mexicali, Mexico in 1921, catering to Americans 10 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002), 12.
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 7
traveling to Baja. After prohibition, the company moved its brewing operations to San Diego11 and opened a beer hall in the Logan Heights neighborhood. Murals from the beer hall, painted by Spanish artist, Jose Moya del Pino, depicted traditional Aztec and Mayan imagery.12 By late summer of 1933, there were six distributors of Aztec Brewing Company beer throughout the greater Los Angeles area, each of which had their own franchise.13
While Aztec Brewing Company may convey a significant pattern of economic development in San Diego immediately after prohibition, contrary to the landmark designation application, there is no clear connection between the subject property and Santa Monica’s economy in the 1930s and 1940s.
Unlike the San Diego brewery, the subject property does not “exemplif[y] economic development following the end of prohibition.”14 631 Colorado Avenue was a distribution warehouse for a San Diego-based company; there was never any beer brewed on the premise. There is no information on who received the beer that was distributed, but it is highly likely it did not stay exclusively in Santa Monica. An advertisement from August 1933 notes that the Venice location of the A.B.C.
Distribution Co. distributed beer throughout “Santa Monica, Venice, Ocean Park and Beach Section.”15 It can be assumed that the distribution area remained similar when A.B.C. Distribution Co. moved to the subject property after it was constructed in 1937.
A.B.C. beer was not the only beer option open to thirsty denizens of Santa Monica. The 1934 Los Angeles City Directory lists 10 breweries making beer in Los Angeles.16 While Santa Monica may have taken a “more conservative stance on alcohol consumption at the end of prohibition,”17 there is no evidence to suggest that beer brewed outside the City, such as in Los Angeles, was not distributed in Santa Monica.
Finally, the 1936 Santa Monica City Directory lists two other “Brewers’ Agents” and one “LiquorsDistributors.”18 Of those, Bohemian Distributing Co, located at 2439 Main Street, and Ocean Park Beverage Co, located at 2719 Main Street, are both extant.19 The same year, the 1936 Los Angeles City Directory lists 20 “Brewers’ Agents.”20 While A.B.C. Distributing Co. may have been one of the early beer distributors in Santa Monica, it was by no means the only one, nor is it the last one remaining.
Furthermore, warehousing and distribution was such a common use, it is typically not considered significant at all. There was no actual product made at the subject property and A.B.C. Distribution Company does not appear to have innovated any new techniques of distribution. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the subject property “reflect[s] the elevated stature of the liquor business in that [post prohibition] era.”21 The subject property is not significant under criterion 1 for its association with the A.B.C Distribution Co.
11 Nina Fresco, “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division: Designation Application,” submitted May 20, 2021. 12 Ian Anderson, “Celebrating 100 years of Aztec Brewing,” San Diego Reader, January 22, 2021, https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2021/jan/22/beer-celebrating-100-years-aztec-brewing/.
Many of the murals from the beer hall, also called the Rathskeller, were removed from the brewery before it was demolished in 1990 and reinstalled in the Logan Heights library. (“Aztec Brewing Company,” Chicano Park Museum, https://chicanoparkmuseum.org/logan-heights-archival-project/aztec-brewery/.) 13 “Display Ad,” Los Angeles Times, August 30, 1933, 5; Nina Fresco, “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division:
Designation Application,” submitted May 20, 2021. 14 Nina Fresco, “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division: Designation Application,” submitted May 20, 2021. 15 “Display Ad,” Los Angeles Times, August 30, 1933, 5. 16 “Brewers,” Los Angeles City Directory, (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1934). 17 Nina Fresco, “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division: Designation Application,” submitted May 20, 2021. 18 Santa Monica and Venice City Directory, (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1936). 19 Neither 2439 Main Street nor 2719 Main Street were identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update. 20 Los Angeles City Directory, (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1936). 21 City of Santa Monica, “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark.”
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 8
The subject property is not significant for association with Etta Vena Moxley (1870-1950), a leader in the African American Women’s Club movement, as there are no extant buildings associated with Moxley
As explained in great length in the landmark designation application, Etta Moxley, a leader in the African American Women’s Club movement, lived in a house at the subject property from around the turn of the twentieth century through circa 1928, although she owned the property until 1937.
During this period, there were four residential cottages on the subject property and a small commercial building. All but one of these five buildings were demolished in 1937 to allow for construction of the existing building at 631 Colorado Avenue. The last building was demolished by 1965. There are no buildings left from the period when Etta Moxley lived at the property. The two buildings at the property date from 1937 and 1941, after Etta Moxley had moved to another location and sold the property.
As described in the landmark designation application, Etta Moxley was one of the founding members of the Monday Women’s Club, located at 1209 East 6th Street in the Oakwood neighborhood of Venice, which was designated a City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument #1203 in 2020. The clubhouse is significant as an important reminder of black women in Venice who banded together for social interaction and were actively engaged with improving their community. In addition to her involvement in the Monday Women’s Club, Etta Moxley was also very active in the state-wide California Association of Colored Women’s Clubs, serving as its fourth president between 1912 and 1914.22 During her tenure, she supported the establishment of the Sojourner Truth Home in 1913, located at 1119 East Adams Boulevard (extant), the first collective effort undertaken by black women’s clubs throughout Southern California that initially provided living quarters and job training for unmarried women and single mothers.23 Etta Moxley is indeed an important individual whose accomplishments should be brought to wide public attention. However, the property at 631 Colorado Avenue is not the correct location to commemorate her life and work as there is nothing tangible left from the period of her residency.
According to Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.56.030, an improvement appropriate for designation includes “Any building, structure, place, site, work of art, landscape feature, plantlife, life-form, scenic condition or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.” As there is no improvement at the subject property associated with Etta Moxley, this location is not eligible for designation for this association. Furthermore, there is no basis in the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance to designate this property for its past association with the resident of a home that itself no longer exists.
The National Register provides additional guidance on eligibility. National Register Bulletin 32:
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons requires that, “a property must retain integrity from the period of its significant associations.” As described more fully below, integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance. In other words, a property must generally appear as it did when it gained significance. One test is “whether the significant person(s) associated with the resource would recognize it as it exists today.”24 The subject property would most certainly not pass this test. Etta Moxley would not recognize the buildings at the subject property as her former home.
22 California State Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc., “California State Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc. booklet,” (African American Museum & Library at Oakland: 1953). 23 Douglas Flamming, Bound for Freedom: Black Los Angeles in Jim Crow America (University of California Press, 2005), 139. 24 Beth Grosvenor Boland, National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service), 23.
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 9
As aptly and succinctly noted in the GPA report:
Because the built environment only reflects certain aspects of the importance a community, space, or neighborhood may have, place-based historic designation 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.25
The City of Santa Monica should strive to communicate the significance of Etta Moxley in a wide variety of meaningful ways. Identifying a site with no physical evidence of Moxley’s life and work does not convey her important role in local history, while some of the above-listed strategies for historical interpretation could better represent her accomplishments.
The subject property is not significant for its use of groutlock brick, which was never an important building material
Groutlock brick was a brand of reinforced brick masonry produced by the Simons Brick Company for a relatively short period of time between 1932 until approximately 1942. Reinforced brick masonry is a type of building material that incorporates steel reinforcement embedded in mortar or grout that increases “resistance to forces that produce tensile and shear stresses.”26 Reinforced brick masonry was first used in the beginning of the nineteenth century in England. One of the earliest uses of reinforced brick masonry was at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco in 1887 that, due to the steel reinforcing, survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. An article published in 1933 estimated about 40 “individual jobs” utilized reinforced brick masonry and “approximately 50 additional jobs are either under construction or under consideration in various parts of the country.”27 The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake initiated substantial changes in the building code, requiring additional reinforcement. These changes to the building code took nearly a decade to put into practice.28 After World War II, use of reinforced brick masonry became common, typically utilizing a hollow within the brick to vertically install reinforcing steel.29 Simons Brick Company heavily advertised their product in local newspapers, highlighting a variety of buildings that used groutlock brick, including residential, industrial, and commercial properties.
Simons groutlock brick retains typical dimensions along the visible elevations with a void at the rear that allows for a horizontal reinforcing rebar. Although Simons produced 150,000 bricks a day in 1933,
30 groutlock bricks were only a small fraction of their total product line. Ultimately, groutlock brick did not take hold and they have come to be regarded as “gimmicky.”31 25 GPA Consulting, 5-6. 26 The Brick Industry Association, “Technical Notes on Brick Construction: Technical Notes 17 – Reinforced Brick Masonry – Introduction,” Reissued October 1996, https://www.gobrick.com/read-research/technical-notes. 27 The Brick Industry Association, “Technical Notes on Brick Construction: Technical Notes 17 – Reinforced Brick Masonry – Introduction,” Reissued October 1996, https://www.gobrick.com/read-research/technical-notes. 28 Richard Rydel, Executive Director, Masonry Institute of America, phone conversation with Jenna Snow, March 23, 2022. 29 Michael Schuler, P.E., President Atkinson-Noland & Associates, phone conversation with Jenna Snow, March 23, 2022. 30 “Factories Throughout City Increasing Production,” Los Angeles Times, May 21, 1933, 16. 31 Josh Higgins, phone conversation with Jenna Snow, March 30, 2022. Josh Higgins is a seventh-generation brick manufacturer. His grandfather, Robert Higgins, founded Higgins Brick & Tile Co. in 1927, which later bought out Simons Brick Co. in Santa Monica.
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 10
With regards to evaluating the significance of a property for its method of construction, National Register guidance states:
A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type of period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history. For properties that represent the variation, evolution, or transition of construction types, it must be demonstrated that the variation, etc., was an important phase of the architectural development of the area of community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings. A property is not eligible, however, simply because it has been identified as the only such property ever fabricated; it must be demonstrated to be significant as well.32
Although the Main Building at the subject property may have used a reinforced groutlock brick, this method of construction does not appear to be historically significant. Like many brick buildings in the 1930s, the method of construction appears to be somewhat experimental, before the new building code was established. Its use at the subject property does not appear to have influenced any other nearby building, nor did it change the code. Finally, groutlock brick had a relatively short life and did not become the dominant type of reinforced brick masonry in the post-World War II era.
Given all these considerations, it cannot be said that the building material or method of construction is significant.
The Main Building does not retain integrity from its date of construction, 1937, as the appearance of 631 Colorado Blvd has changed considerably over time. 631 Colorado Boulevard has undergone substantial changes since it was constructed in 1937 and does not retain integrity. Typically, for a property to be eligible for designation, it must meet at least one eligibility criterion listed above and retain sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance.
Integrity is defined as physical and visual characteristics necessary to convey significance. Evaluation of integrity is founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to 32 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002), 18.
Figure 3: South elevation, view northwest (Santa Monica History Museum, 1945)
Figure 4: South elevation, view northwest, red highlights show areas of alteration (Snow, 2022)
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 631 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 11
its significance.”33 The seven aspects of integrity are Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association. To satisfy the integrity requirement, a property must retain at least a majority of seven aspects.
While the Main Building at the subject property retains integrity of location (as it has not been moved), it lacks integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. Primary alterations include:
replacement of all window and door openings, including replacement of window sash and relocating the primary entrance from the south elevation to the west elevation; an addition to the north elevation; and sandblasting of all visible elevations at least twice, changing the appearance of the brick.34 Because of these alterations diminishing integrity, the Main Building cannot convey its feeling and association as an industrial building. The subject property does not resemble its historic appearance, neither from 1937 nor from the 1960s. Even if the property were to be found to have significance, it does not retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance.
Conclusion
This memorandum confirms the findings in two prior assessment reports prepared by GPA Consulting and ESA, respectively, as well as the City staff report prepared in preparation of the Landmarks Commission hearing in January 2022. As demonstrated in the earlier reports, as well as this memorandum, the Main Building at the subject property is not significant under criterion 1. As an industrial building, it contributed to the evolution of industrial development in Santa Monica along the early rail line, a zone which included Colorado Boulevard by the 1910s. It was not the earliest industrial building in the area, nor is it the last. None of the business that occupied the building were shown to have made significant contributions to their specific fields while occupying the subject property. Finally, there are no extant buildings at the subject property associated with Etta Moxley. Under criterion 4, while the building may have used groutlock brick construction, this is not a historically significant method of construction. Further, there is no evidence that its use in the Main Building influenced its use in any other building activities in the area. The Main Building at 631 Colorado Boulevard does not rise to the level of significance to warrant designation as a City of Santa Monica Landmark.
33 Rebecca H. Shrimpton, editor, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1998) 44, <http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/>. 34 The north elevation is not accessible due to the closeness of the adjacent building to the north.
Figure 6: Historic aerial photograph, west elevation, note two large openings (UCLA Air Photo Archives, 1965)
Figure 7: West elevation, view east, red highlights show areas of alteration (Snow, 2022)
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado
QUALIFICATIONS
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado
JENNA SNOW
In January 2015, Jenna Snow launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice with offices in Los Angeles. With twenty years of professional experience, Ms. Snow has a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations.
Throughout her career, Ms. Snow has authored, co-authored, and/or served as project manager for over 100 historic preservation projects, including a wide variety of historic resource assessments, National Register, California Register, and local nominations, as well as historic resources surveys. She regularly contributes to environmental impact reports, historic preservation certification applications, Section 106 reviews and other work associated with historic building rehabilitation and preservation planning. For five years, she served on the board of the South Carthay Historic Preservation Overlay Zone in mid-city Los Angeles.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting, January 2015-present Chattel, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, July 2002 – December 2014 International Council on Monuments and Sites, Transylvania Trust Foundation, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Fall 2004
Neighborhood Preservation Center, New York, NY, Spring 2002 New York City Department of Design and Construction, Historic Preservation Office, New York, NY, Summer 2001
The Freedom Trail Foundation, Boston, MA, January 1999 - October 1999
SELECTED PROJECTS
Temple Ohave Israel (Brownsville, PA) – Prepared a National Register nomination for a 1919 synagogue located in a small, economically depressed town of western Pennsylvania. The synagogue, significant as an anchor for the small, but influential Jewish community of Brownsville, PA, was listed in the National Register in February 2016. Listing in the National Register makes the property eligible for state grants to maintain the building, including replacement of a much needed roof.
Hawk House (Los Angeles, CA) – Prepared a successful Historic Cultural Monument nomination for a 1939 single family residential house designed by renown Los Angeles architect Harwell Hamilton Harris for Stan and Ethyl Hawk.
The house severed as the headquarters for the furnishing company “Hawk House.” Chuey House (Los Angeles, CA) - Prepared a Historic-Cultural Monument nomination for a single family residence designed by one of the most influential Los Angeles architects, Richard Neutra, in 1956. As the property was for sale, the house was threatened with demolition. While the nomination was ultimately withdrawn, it served as a negotiation tool for the Los Angeles Conservancy.
Frank’s Camera (Los Angeles, CA) – Completed a Historic Structures Report in support of a Mills Act Contract for a former S.H. Kress & Co., a five-and-dimestore. A contributor to the Highland Park-Garvanza Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, the building was constructed in 1928 and is undergoing a rehabilitation to convert the building to smaller retail spaces. The building serves as a visual and economic anchor to the revitalizing commercial strip along North Figueroa.
Monday Women’s Club (Los Angeles, CA) - Prepared a historic resource assessment for a black women’s club in the Venice neighborhood. Moved to the site in 1926, the building on the property was proposed for demolition. Worked with the project team on a focused EIR that studied alternatives.
EDUCATION
Columbia University in the City of
New York, Master of Science in
Historic Preservation, 2002
Brandeis University, Bachelor of
Arts in Fine Arts, 1998
QUALIFICATIONS
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications
Standards in Architectural History
LEED GA
AWARDS
Rosalind W. Levine Prize for
excellence in Fine Arts, June 1998
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
Secretary, South Carthay Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone Board,
2011-2016
Pick Leader, Food Forward, 2011-
present
Los Angeles Conservancy
ModCom Working Group, 2013-
2014
Guest Editor, The Next American
City, Fall 2006, Issue 12
New Orleans recovery team from
Western Regional Office of the
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, February 2006
Jenna Snow ● Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected]
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Additional Projects:
Commodore Apartments (Los Angeles, CA) - Process Investment Tax Credit application for a 1926 Hollywood apartment building that completed a major rehabilitation project. The rehabilitation carefully restored the primary façade, which had experienced multiple alterations over the years.
West Los Angeles Veteran’s Affairs (Los Angeles, CA) – Between 2010 and 2014, prepared Section 106 review and consultation for the first of 11 buildings that are undergoing seismic retrofit and limited rehabilitation. The buildings will be reused to house veterans who are homeless. The rehabilitation won a Los Angeles Conservancy award. Also prepared a successful National Register nomination for the whole campus, which was listed in November 2014. Work was done at Chattel, Inc. as a subconsultant to Leo A. Daly.
West Los Angeles Veteran’s Affairs Building 205 and Building 208 (Los Angeles, CA) - Process Investment Tax Credit application and Section 106 review for two buildings out-leased to a nonprofit developer. The two buildings will be rehabilitated to house homeless veterans. Work is estimated to be complete in 2021.
Boyle Hotel/Cummings Block (Los Angeles, CA) – Completed Investment Tax Credit Application and National Register nomination for 1898 hotel in Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. The building has been reused to house low-income residents of Boyle Heights and has been a catalyst for economic rehabilitation in the neighborhood. The rehabilitation won a Los Angeles Conservancy award, as well as a National Preservation Honor Award. Work was done at Chattel, Inc. for the East Los Angeles Community Corporation.
Breed Street Shul Project, Inc. – Project Manager for Phase 1 seismic stabilization and stained glass window restoration. Provided design review and construction monitoring and prepared historic review documentation for local environmental review. Consulted with federal agencies on Section 106 compliance for a FEMA grant and a federal appropriation. Work was done at Chattel, Inc.
Historic Resources Survey Update (Los Angeles, CA) - Served as the project manager for preparation of historic context statements and intensive-level historic resource survey. The survey were prepared in close coordination with the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources to dovetail into SurveyLA. Surveyed approximately 3,000 properties, including property-specific research on approximately 400 of these properties. Attended several public hearings at both the beginning and end of the process, as well as presented at nearly a dozen neighborhood council meetings. Work was done with Chattel, Inc.
Judson Rives Building (Los Angeles, CA)– Completed Investment Tax Credit Application for a 1908 office building in downtown Los Angeles, a contributing resource to the Broadway Historic District that was converted to residential use. Work was done at Chattel, Inc.
Hollywood Profession Building (Los Angeles, CA) - Completed Investment Tax Credit Application for a 1926 office building on Hollywood Boulevard. The building is significant not only for its distinctive Neo-Gothic style, but also with for its association with former United States President Ronald Reagan. The office building was converted to residential use. Work was done for Chattel, Inc. for CIM Group.
Residential Survey (Whittier, CA) - Prepared a historic context statement focusing on architectural contexts and themes connected with residential development in Whittier. Feld surveyed approximately 1,540 properties generally constructed prior to 1941 using an Access database incorporating GIS mapping to collect survey data in the field. The survey was prepared in close coordination with the City of Whittier staff and Historic Resources Commission and was adopted by the City of Whitter in 2015. Work was done with Chattel, Inc.
SurveyLA City of Los Angeles (Office of Historic Resources) – Participated in completing a historic resource survey of over 97,000 properties in South and Southeast Los Angeles. Co-authored historic context statement of Los Angeles’ industrial history. Work was done at Chattel, Inc.
6.B.j
Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: Appeal Supplemental Part 2-Snow Memo and qualifications(15049663.1) (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado 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 COMMERCIAL BUILDING 21ENT-0125
LOCATED\AT 631 COLORADO AVENUE
AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. 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 631 Colorado Avenue. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on January 10, 2022 hereby finds that the subject residence located at 631 Colorado Avenue meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100 and designates the subject commercial buidling as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 631 Colorado Avenue 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 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 southeast 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 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 property. Aerospace industry demands led to a proliferation of new one-story, brick, commercial industrial buildings in various parts of the
6.B.k
Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 2 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.
Therefore, 631 Colorado Avenue appears to satisfy Landmark Criterion 1. (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.
Therefore, 631 Colorado Avenue does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 2. (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, 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
6.B.k
Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 3 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 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.
Therefore, the subject property appears to 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.
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
6.B.k
Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 4 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 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.
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 subject property does not satisfy Criterion 6.
SECTION II. The character-defining features of the property include the following:
• Rectilinear massing.
• Front façade with fluted pilasters.
• Brick and stucco materials.
NOTE: The Designation includes the structure at the corner of 7th Street and Colorado Avenue, excluding all other structure on the parcel.
SECTION III. The property commonly known as 631 Colorado Avenue 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 January 10, 2022 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Garvin, Sloan, Summers, Chair Genser
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Brand
NAYES: Green, Chair Pro Tem Breisch
6.B.k
Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 5 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 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
January 10, 2022
Roger Genser, Chairperson
Attest:
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP
Landmarks Commission Secretary
6.B.k
Packet Pg. 1871 Attachment: STOA 21ENT-0125 (631 Colorado Ave) LM Designation (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) (310) 451-3669
June 10, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 6-B (landmark appeal of brick building) Appellant/Property Owner: 500 Pounds of Dog, Inc. (Michael Bay) Address: 631 Colorado Avenue
Appeal 21ENT-0253/Designation Application 21ENT-0067
Our File No. 22688.001
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is written on behalf of Michael Bay, the owner of the property at 631 Colorado Avenue. For the past 20 years, he has operated his feature film business (Bay Films) at this location. He has recently relocated out of State and wishes to sell this property. In connection with listing the property for sale, Mr. Bay filed a demolition permit application, which triggered its 75-day review because the building is more than 40 years old. At that time, the property was under contract for sale to a mixed-use residential developer. (The property has been listed in the last two Housing Elements as a site suitable for residential development.)
Upon learning of the demolition permit application, the Santa Monica Conservancy filed an application to nominate the property as a City Landmark (which they have a right to do and which is the only process for initiating review of demolition permits). Planning Commissioner (and former Landmarks Commissioner) Nina Fresco filed her own research in support of the nomination.
The Landmarks Commission, in a divided 4-2 decision, voted to designate the Main Building as a City Landmark and the property as a Landmark Parcel. Following that vote, the property fell out of contract for sale to the residential developer.
The Landmarks Commission’s Architectural Historian (Dr. Ken Breisch) voted against the designation and was an outspoken critic of the designation, as was the Art Conservator on the Commission (Amy Green). The Commission’s licensed architect (Richard Brand) was unable to participate in the vote due to the proximity of his residence to the site. Mr. Bay appealed the 4-2 decision to the City Council. [email protected]
Item 6.B
06/14/22
1 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1872 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Santa Monica City Council
June 10, 2022
We are writing in support of: the Staff Recommendation, the City’s independent expert (GPA Consulting), Landmarks Commissioner Dr. Breisch, another historic preservation consultant whom the City often hires (ESA/Dr. Jerabek-Bray), and a historic preservation consultant I hired to peer review the reports and perform her own supplemental research (Jenna Snow).
All of the experts conclude that the property does not merit designation.
Consistent with the expert reports, the City Council should grant the appeal, and overturn the designation. This is a de novo hearing and a quasi-judicial proceeding, and there is abundant evidence in the record in support of the appeal.
Please keep in mind that the designation of City Landmarks should be reserved for special buildings. This building (constructed in 1937) is not a special building.
Declaring marginal buildings to be City Landmarks waters down the importance of the City’s truly historic properties. The third party independent experts all agree that this building is not any more notable than many industrial brick buildings found in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California.
Moreover, this building has been substantially altered (and degraded by sandblasting at least twice and the grout has been poorly repointed) over the years.
For the reasons stated in the Staff Report, the property owner (or a future purchaser) should be allowed to demolish the building.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that none of the buildings currently found at 631 Colorado existed when prominent African American Etta Moxley owned and lived on the property. There is no disputing that the Landmarks Ordinance simply does not allow for designation of a property based on a past house that no longer exists. As the Staff Report thoughtfully explains, there are many other civic ways that Ms. Moxley’s notable accomplishments and leadership can be commemorated:
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. (Staff Report, p. 8.)
I will conclude by quoting extensively from Professor Breisch, who summed things up quite powerfully at the Landmarks Commission hearing:
Yes, I would say I’m not very happy with this, the way it’s moving forward, for a number of reasons. I think there is a Item 6.B
06/14/22
2 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1873 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Santa Monica City Council
June 10, 2022
major question on integrity that’s lacking here. And that I don’t think the building really reflects--I don’t know what it reflects . . .
I’m a little confused by the statement of significance in terms of the reinforced masonry construction, which I don’t think has been proven one way or another. And I went and looked very closely at it, and I couldn’t figure out exactly what was going on, I have to say. And that was in no small part
because the building’s been sandblasted twice. And in terms of the significance of materials and workmanship, for
example, it’s not there.
So, if we’re looking at this building as an example of a particular type of masonry construction, it doesn’t exist anymore. Sandblasting is really a major problem in terms of not just designation, but of course, the way you treat
buildings after they’ve been designated. And this thing has just been decimated. And it’s been repointed to the point where it’s just pretty disgusting workmanship.
So, if we’re sort of mixing these things together, there are new windows, the entry’s been moved and really there’s no integrity whatsoever to this structure in terms of the
masonry, and whether it’s groutlock or not, which I really am doubtful about. So, the thing we’re designating should really reflect something of the history of the place. And if it’s been so altered with sandblasting in the ‘50s and changing
windows and moving entryways, then I just don’t see that working for me.
I am absolutely sympathetic to recognizing the earlier
African-American neighborhood and community that was
there, but I don’t think this is really the place to do it . . .
There’s a wonderful memorial to Biddy Mason in Downtown LA, but that’s not a historic landmark. It commemorates what was there and is no longer there, that’s been erased, and that’s what we’ve got here. So, that bothers me too, I think, to be recognizing that.
Item 6.B
06/14/22
3 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1874 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) Santa Monica City Council
June 10, 2022
With all due respect Commissioner Sloan, I think that there were previous occupants before the African-Americans were there. And I think we have a park just down the street [i.e., Tongva Park] that recognizes that as well.
It’s just bothersome to me that we keep layering on these things that don’t really reflect the nature of the Landmark Ordinance and what it’s intended to do. So, that’s my
problem.
To use a real important architectural technical term, it’s cute.
But I don’t think it rises to the level of being a landmark.
I don’t think it rises to that level.
Conclusion
We urge the City Council to agree with the Staff Recommendation and grant the appeal and overturn the designation of this property.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: Stephanie Reich
David Martin
David White
Heidi von Tongeln
Douglas Sloan
Michael Bay
F:\WPDATA\22688\001 (631 Colorado)\Cor\CC 2022.06.10.docx Item 6.B
06/14/22
4 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1875 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Item 6B: Landmark designation appeal on 631Colorado
EXTERNAL
June 13, 2022
Item 6B: Appeal of Landmark Designation for 631 Colorado Avenue
Honorable Councilmembers,
This letter supports the Landmark designation of the Main Building at 631 Colorado Avenue, and requests that you deny the appeal.
The property owner who has requested demolition has commissioned additional reports from historic preservation consultants to undermine the findings of the STOA that was approved by the Landmarks Commission. The findings of those reports are designed to satisfy the client and can be understood in that light. The GPA report, which the City commissioned, was refuted during the public hearing on the landmark application, and the STOA convincingly explains the reasons why this building is significant under the Santa Monica criteria for designation. I note that we use the local Santa Monica criteria for assessing significance, and not the National Register criteria.
Our landmarks are selected because they tell the stories that are important to understand Santa Monica’s history and our development. We don’t require such buildings to be the first, the only or the most important conveyance of such history, but – as Criteria 1 states:
It exemplifies, symbolized or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The stories that 631 Colorado manifests are:
The expansion of commercial uses southward in our downtown, replacing former residential buildings, exemplifying the growth of our business economy in Depression‐era economic recovery; A new beer distribution business locating downtown that symbolized the end of prohibition; A succession of uses that exemplifies our economic development, from beer distribution to aviation to automotive to films. The sequence itself tells a story.
Criteria 4 can be confusing as it combines a cluster of different concepts for assessing architectural and material characteristics. This building is significant under the first phrase:
It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction…
The masonry construction is valuable to a study of post‐Long Beach Earthquake response to vernacular building construction addressing seismic stabilization. That 1933 earthquake was a major regional geological event which had enormous consequences to urban development. Groutlock bricks were an innovative Item 6.B
06/14/22
5 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1876 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 2 technology which exemplify one response, even if that innovation did not become popular or enduring. The concrete bond beams are another visible response to seismic issues.
The fact that the bricks have been sandblasted is unfortunate but is never considered sufficient to disqualify a property from meeting criteria for designation. Such afflictions are found on many landmarked buildings (i.e.
Palisades Building at the Miramar; the Keller Block downtown). This argument to disqualify landmark status is way overblown.
Additionally, the Streamline Moderne façade is a classic embodiment of that style, with the grooved pilasters, the repeat of three horizontal lines (known as “speed lines” in architectural terminology), and the three‐ stepped pilaster caps. Its use on the façade of this vernacular building is valuable to a study of the architecture of this period. While the façade windows are not original, they are entirely consistent and compatible with the character of the building.
Finally, I would like to remind you of other developments in Santa Monica that have combined preservation of a small landmarked building into a larger project:
Rapp Saloon with Hostelling International
Pono Burgers in a housing development
Nikkei Hall in a housing development
Palisades Building and Moreton Bay Ficus in the Miramar development Two small landmarked structures on Ocean Avenue into the Frank Gehry project.
The corner location of the landmarked building facilitates its incorporation into a new project, and there are incentives for doing so (i.e. Mills Act Historic Property Contract).
Finally, a word about professional qualifications. I am certified as a historic preservation professional, validated by the State Office of Historic Preservation during my tenure as historic preservation planner with the City of Long Beach. While Nina Fresco lacks an advanced degree in this field, she utilizes professional methodology of historical research, using a wide number of primary sources and investigating historical context as reflected in newspaper articles, journals and diaries, and deriving a narrative from these materials.
She has been researching a book on Santa Monica history for a number of years and can draw upon a vast trove of information.
Please deny the appeal, support the Landmark Commission findings, and preserve an important piece of the Santa Monica story.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
Former Landmarks Commissioner, architectural historian
Item 6.B
06/14/22
6 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1877 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) 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.B
06/14/22
7 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1878 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
631 Colorado Avenue
Appeal of Rebuttal from Applicant for Designation
631 Colorado Avenue clearly qualifies as a Santa Monica Landmark based on the findings adopted by the Landmarks Commission at the January 10, 2022 designation hearing. The appeal should be denied.
631 Colorado Was the First Commercial Structure in a Historic Residential Neighborhood 631 Colorado Avenue is significant to Santa Monica history under two Landmarks Designation criteria, 1 & 4. It is significant to Santa Monica history as the first, and also the last example of a single-story industrial-style commercial building that began the transformation of one of the earliest residential sections of the city, home to working class whites, and people of color since the first lots were sold here. The significance of this resource is enhanced by the range of uses it saw, which were emblematic of trends in the city during their periods of occupancy. The structure’s construction was influenced by major historic events of its time reflected in its style and method of construction, and reflects city planning and zoning history.1 This is clearly laid out and explained in the findings for designation adopted by the Landmarks Commission in the January 10, 2022 STOA (Attachment K). It provides a snapshot of Santa Monica in 1937. To see this, we have to consider the historical context of the immediate vicinity.
Our Local Ordinance is not the Same Thing as the National Register The appellant’s analysis of the subject property promises to streamline details in the original application, which it considers “irrelevant” allowing the appellant to find significance only in the biggest and brightest flashes of success, wealth, innovation, and progress. The appellant’s analysis repeatedly falls back on National Register bulletins to justify a glossing over and distancing from local narratives. If we were proposing a parcel in Santa Monica for National Register listing, we would follow the direction in the bulletins to the letter. We aren’t.
As our city attorneys will remind you, Santa Monica’s historic preservation program is ruled by our local Landmarks Ordinance that includes codified criteria and employs a locally tailored application form. We do not use the National Register criteria or application. Our Santa Monica criteria are in some ways similar to national criteria, but purposefully modified in language and interpretation to capture the kinds of resources that are important for narration of Santa Monica history. In fact, that is how the National Register guidance instructs us to proceed on 1 Note: the subject structure is a commercial building where liquor sales took place, and also included a warehouse, which gives it an industrial aspect. Since industrial uses have never been permitted on this site, it would be incorrect to call it an industrial building, and since it includes a warehouse space, it is clearly also not strictly commercial.
Item 6.B
06/14/22
8 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1879 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) the local level. The National Register reminds us that all places are part of their local community, which best understands the importance of those places, and how to protect them from change or loss likely to impact them. For example, a National Parks Service website encouraging the establishment local historic districts includes the following to introduce the topic (emphasis added):
Local legislation is one of the best ways to protect the historic character of buildings, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and special landmarks ….
2 In Santa Monica, Landmarks and Historic Districts include places that represent the range of lifestyles, property types, and cultural influences that make up the city’s history. They convey a spectrum of local narratives, not only the stories of rich white men who attract our attention with dazzling accomplishments and glamourous architecture. Nonetheless, literature guiding interpretation of national criteria for designation is often, as in this case, weaponized against our local preservation program by property owners and their attorneys seeking to avoid designation.
Accuracy Counts: It was a Residential Neighborhood of Color The subject property was not ever located in an industrial zone of the city. That is a factually incorrect assumption made by the appellant in the following claim on page 4 of the Snow report (Attachment J):
While the Landmark nomination ascribes the property’s location as the south-east portion of Downtown, it is more accurate to describe this portion of Colorado Avenue as part of an industrial zone adjacent to the former railroad, and now the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10).
Images used by the appellant in figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the report submitted by Ms. Snow to support this completely conjectural claim are all from the 1960s, which was after the entire area had been transformed with redevelopment that followed the pioneering construction of the subject property by almost 3 decades. A complete set of maps and images in the original application (Attachment D) ranging from 1895 – 1960 shows the actual historic character of the subject district as residential until sometime after 1950. Furthermore, though there was not a zoning ordinance as we think of it today in Santa Monica until 1922, the city did have laws on the books directing where certain uses could or could not be, beginning in the 1890s. In June 1912, Ordinance No. 159 defined limited locations where industrial manufacturing uses would be allowed. The industrial zone was generally between the centerlines of Olympic and Colorado Boulevards with some variation on the east and west ends. West of Lincoln Boulevard adjacent to downtown, the boundaries jogged around two lumberyards that predated the ordinance (and were developed with wooden sheds very different from the subject property type). The rest of the 1912 boundary west of Lincoln Boulevard was set back away from the residential district that would someday host the present structure by a full block. The industrial area did 2 https://www.nps.gov/tps/education/workingonthepast/index.htm Item 6.B
06/14/22
9 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1880 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) not begin in the area of the subject property and “come to include Colorado Avenue,” as the appellant falsely claims, again referring to the four irrelevant 1960s images as evidence. Next, the applicant blithely lists sites in other parts of the city that developed under completely different contexts as alleged comparables. Buildings are not isolated events. Context is everything. Beginning in the 1940s, the part of the actual industrial zone that is west of Lincoln did not come to accommodate more industry as the appellants report assumes, but in fact was overtaken by a large residential trailer park that accommodated a huge influx of wartime aircraft workers (see images in Attachment D for evidence).
The residentially zoned neighborhood of which the subject property was a part was home to working class whites, African Americans, Mexicans and other people of color since the first lots were sold in the city. In 1922, new zoning classified the area a commercial or “C” Zone. “C” Zones allowed residential uses but prohibited industrial manufacturing. With “C” zoning in place, the residential areas on 5th, 6th, and 7th Streets, including the subject property, were poised for commercial redevelopment, but change did come not right away. 631 Colorado’s Style and Method of Construction Tell Us About its Era In the late 1930s, recovery from the Great Depression began to impact the already established commercial district of downtown on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Streets. There was plenty to do on those blocks, so growth didn’t extend east of there for the first time until 1937 when the subject property was constructed by the ABC Distributing Company. The ABC Distributing Company adorned its new warehouse and sales office structure with art deco/streamline modern characteristics. The look was consistent with the architectural moves in the rest of downtown, and provided a respectable street presence for the liquor business. It was not the only liquor outlet in the city for long, and obviously a business big enough to occupy a property this size would sell its wares beyond the borders of Santa Monica, but it was the first of note in Santa Monica, and the only liquor business to invest in a new brick building using the latest trends in brick technology along with some popular architectural detailing, however slight. Because of the use of period-specific materials and an uncommon application of detailing for its building type in Santa Monica, the property also qualifies under Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criterion 4 as a rare example of a historic method of construction and use of detail valuable for study.
As for the bricks, neither Groutlock nor Porta Costa bricks changed the world in the long term and were not described in that way in the findings. The bricks convey a historical narrative that took place when the Great Depression collided with 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, two disasters of epic proportions. Once again, the appellant loses track of the fact that we are preserving buildings that are records of particular moments in time that show how we lived, worked, and in the case of these bricks, solved problems. The appeal statement dismisses Groutlock and Porta Costa bricks because “they have come to be regarded as gimmicky.” Historians are supposed to record history, not judge it. Regardless of how they “have come to be regarded,” the bricks represent a specialized construction solution particular to their time and are worthy of study. Note that the Smithsonian Museum has an 8-track tape player in its collection. Also Item 6.B
06/14/22
10 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) considered gimmicky, 8-track players nonetheless represent a moment in history worth knowing about.
631 Colorado is the Last of its Kind in Downtown
In the 1950s, just as with the well-documented story of the Belmar area, this section of downtown was marked as blighted and slum clearance activities took place. It was not taken over by eminent domain, but the city ordered a number of the old homes, still occupied by people of color, to be demolished. Because segregation made it more difficult for people of color to find places to live in the city, they typically helped their fellows by passing homes they occupied to other people of color by sale or rental, a fact documented on the real estate pages of the Santa Monica Outlook, and also apparent through detailed study of Santa Monica census records. So, it took the aggressive, national slum clearance movement of the 1950s to open up the commercially zoned lots immediately adjacent to the center of downtown for redevelopment. By the 1960s, when the aerials in Figures 1, 2, 3, & 4 of the appellant’s report were taken, the residential neighborhood visible in more germane earlier aerials provided by the applicant (see original application, Attachment D) was gone without a trace. It had been replaced with one- and two-story commercial buildings, and a handful of apartments. In recent decades, all of the second phase structures except for the subject property, have been redeveloped, or have already approved plans. The subject property is not only the first of its kind, it is also the last of its kind in the downtown.
Erased Stories of People of Color are Critical to the Context of Santa Monica History The improvements on this parcel meet two of Santa Monica’s Criteria for Landmark Designation, and a narrative related to the city’s community of color is part of its predevelopment context. A racial justice framework, an analytical tool we hope to develop to take advantage of our historic preservation program’s potential to further racial justice education in the city, comes into play. Etta Vena Moxley, a historic figure even the appellant acknowledges is highly significant, spent her entire adult life living and working in Santa Monica. Her home of 30 years has been redeveloped, but her story still has a place in the context of the qualified landmark that replaced it at 631 Colorado Avenue. Staff determined the negative race story at Appian Way, not in their view associated with extant improvements on the site, should not be considered in making a landmark designation determination. Likewise, recognition of this inspiring and uplifting narrative was also dismissed for a lack of association with extant improvements. This approach may seem even-handed or fair, but from a racial justice perspective, we may not wish to treat both those stories the same way. By not referring to Etta Moxley in the contextual background of the site, which Criteria 1 allows us to do when describing the cultural significance of this landmark, we are re-burying an inspiring narrative as quickly as we uncovered it. In Santa Monica, most physical evidence of the lives of people of color from the early days of the city has been erased. Entire neighborhoods were razed, disrupted, and redeveloped. We have an opportunity to leverage the natural nexus between racial justice education and historic preservation goals to make Santa Monica better. Not all stories that lurk in the shadows of our history should have a place in our narratives. Analytical Item 6.B
06/14/22
11 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) discussion that seeks a balance of key factors would ensure our findings include the right contextual stories for the right reasons. But this one is pretty easy to decide, it’s all upside. We should not rely only on rare philanthropically funded interpretive displays to tell this part of our history and allow our city’s historic preservation program to remain silent. Since 631 Colorado Avenue meets certain landmark designation criteria in its own right, it is appropriate and fair to include as part of the context for the site, the story of Etta Moxley, an inspiring and important African American woman who lived here in Santa Monica for her entire productive life, though not a single physical artifact associated with her remains extant.
Integrity is to Ensure it Can Tell its Story
The condition of a building proposed for designation, called its integrity, is defined by the National Park Service as a building’s ability to convey its significance. Integrity is evaluated by examining seven characteristics of a property that may have changed over time. Standards for integrity for listing on the National Register are very high because that honorary designation makes properties eligible for significant federal grants and tax breaks. In Santa Monica where we allow a wide range of rehabilitation, remodeling, and additions to our historic resources, the key approach for evaluating integrity is on the view from the public right of way because we preserve buildings to benefit the public and allow historic landmarks to adapt and change to meet the evolving needs even after designation. In the case of the subject property, the most significant alteration is to the window systems, which have been replaced with compatible windows in the original openings. This is a typical change made to commercial buildings. While not ideal, it does not constitute a substantial change to the overall appearance of the landmarked structure from the street. Of the seven aspects of integrity, four of them are apply to the overall resource: location, feeling, association, and setting. These are all intact because the building has not moved from its corner location, still appears as an industrial-style commercial building, and retains its relationship to its surroundings. The other three aspects of integrity are specific to features of the resource: design, workmanship, and materials. These are affected by the changes to the window systems and less so by a rear addition. Defining characteristics of 631 Colorado are still highly apparent and remain valuable for conveying the aspects of Santa Monica history the building represents as described in the Landmarks Commission’s excellent findings for designation.
Landmarks are Frequently Part of New Development in Santa Monica In an “Appeal Supplement” included in your packet as (Attachment I), the appellant brings up a non-sequitur issue relative to a Landmark Designation application regarding the future disposition of the site for development. Through my 20 years of involvement in the city’s historic preservation program, one city attorney after another has consistently urged the Commission to remember that an evaluation for Landmark Designation should avoid any consideration of future change to a resource. It is beside the point. The appellant, though fully aware of this, notes that this parcel has been listed on the Suitable Sites Inventory that supports our yet-to-be-certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. The appellant takes advantage of common misconceptions that historic preservation and landmarks designation stop all future Item 6.B
06/14/22
12 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) change to imply that this parcel would not be able to achieve its development potential for housing were its designation as a landmark upheld. As the appellant points out, abandonment of existing uses on SSI sites is indeed critical to their redevelopment, but the leap the appellant makes that redevelopment depends upon the demolition of all existing improvements is incorrect and misleading.
Historic Resources have been successfully incorporated into new development many times in Santa Monica, and our LUCE speaks at great length about the importance of considering adaptive reuse in new development. When the nomination was filed, a representative of the property owner was contacted to provide information on historic preservation and adaptive reuse. We had a lengthy discussion of how this historic resource, were it to be designated could indeed still fulfill its housing potential, how the new development could even be enhanced by the incorporation of the landmark, and how significant property tax incentives help pay for the addition costs associated with historic preservation. This has been demonstrated in the city many times over, beginning decades ago with the incorporation of the 1875 Rapp Saloon on Second Street (the city’s first-ever landmark) into the American Youth Hostel, and more recently with the WWII Quonset Hut that serves as a restaurant that is part of a substantial housing development at the corner of Lincoln and Broadway. Our landmark City Hall has been incorporated into a brand-new city services building, and the Santa Monica Professional Building has become part of the Proper Hotel. Additionally, there are a number of landmark cottages in multi-unit residential zones of the city that have been able to accommodate several additional units on site.
This landmark would be particularly accommodating to new development because of its siting along property lines at a visible corner, and because the Landmarks Commission did not include any of the altered accessory buildings on the site in the designation. As the appellant’s attorney well knows, FARs permitted in our downtown are designed to ensure sufficient building articulation, setbacks, open space, and fresh air circulation in new construction. To meet city code, most new residential developments include lower level open spaces open to the sky, and are not solid masses. A simple willingness could easily design housing on this site that incorporates this landmark structure without giving up any by right development potential.
Furthermore, the appellant’s attorney worked closely with the Santa Monica Conservancy to propose a host of special code provisions that city council included in the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update to further accommodate preservation needs in the course of new construction. Landmarking would not be a constraint on housing capacity.
The Landmarks Commission accurately determined that 631 Colorado meets Santa Monica Landmarks Designation Criteria 1 & 4 based on the findings in the January 2022 STOA, which should be upheld.
Nina Fresco
Santa Monica Conservancy
June 14, 2022
Item 6.B
06/14/22
13 of 13 Item 6.B
06/14/22
6.B.l
Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Written Comments (4957 : Appeal of Landmarks Designation of 631 Colorado Avenue (60 min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Ordinance to Amend SMMC
7.16.020 Water Conservation Requirements
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduction and adoption of the attached emergency ordinance amending SMMC 7.16.020 on Water Conservation Requirements; and,
2. Obtain the City Council’s concurrence to implement Phase 2 Outdoor Water Restriction and limit outdoor watering to two (2) days per week.
Summary
Climate change impacts have resulted in California experiencing higher average temperatures, heat waves, more frequent devastating wildfires, and prolonged and historic droughts that have impacted the security of water supplies at the state, regional, and local levels. On-going drought conditions across the State of California have driven the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to issue an order at the end of April 2022 to reduce outdoor watering in State Water Project dependent areas to one day per week as outdoor watering accounts for nearly 70 percent of the water use in Southern California. While Santa Monica is not in the State Water Project dependent service area of the MWD and, therefore, not impacted by the order, the need for greater flexibility to conserve water and preserve our water supply long-term is clear. An emergency ordinance to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section
7.16.020 – Water Conservation Requirements is needed to immediately provide flexibility in adjusting water conservation requirements for the upcoming summer months to maintain a reliable and sustainable water supply for the community and to
7.A
Packet Pg. 1885
2 of 4
align water conservation efforts with the region or state, as necessary. Staff is recommending implementing Phase 2 Outdoor Water Restrictions and limiting outdoor watering to two (2) days per week to align with neighboring water agencies’ conservation efforts.
Discussion
Water conservation and water use efficiency is a key component in the City’s 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update to reduce the City’s reliance on imported water supplies and to provide a sustainable, drought resilient local water supply. With worsening and persistent drought conditions impacting the security of both local and State-wide water supplies, having the flexibility to adjust outdoor watering restrictions to align with regional or statewide goals is necessary to maintain critical supplies for health and safety purposes (e.g., human consumption). The City is in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order requiring all urban water suppliers to declare Stage 2 Water Shortage conditions and implement water conservation efforts as outlined in each urban water supplier’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City has remained in a Stage 2 Water Shortage since the last drought and maintained a 20% water demand reduction from the 2013 baseline. The City’s Stage 2 Water Shortage response includes rebates to increase water use efficiency (e.g., landscape rebates and turf replacement), providing free low flow shower heads and fixtures, public outreach messages to conserve water, implement water use allowances for each customer as indicated on their utility bill, and restrict/prohibit water waste such as runoff from landscape irrigation.
Staff is proposing the emergency ordinance to amend SMMC 7.16.020 (a) Landscape (1) Watering Hours:
1. Add language to provide the City with flexibility to implement more stringent watering hours, as approved by the City Manager or designee, to align with regional or state-wide water use restrictions. The proposed addition to outdoor watering restrictions include:
a. Phase 1 – Outdoor watering limited to 3 days per week b. Phase 2 – Outdoor watering limited to 2 days per week
7.A
Packet Pg. 1886
3 of 4
c. Phase 3 – Outdoor watering limited to 1 day per week d. Phase 4 – No outdoor watering allowed
2. Update water hours to prohibit outdoor watering between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from the current time period of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
3. Details on permitted outdoor watering duration on designated watering days.
Please refer to Attachment C for redline version of SMMC 7.16.020.
The proposed outdoor watering restrictions would reduce the City’s total water demand between 5 and 13 percent or roughly 300 to 750 acre-feet of water over a 6 month period depending on the phase implemented.
Public Outreach
Staff began public outreach efforts on water use efficiency and water conservation to the public via social media, mailers, newsletters, and other publications in April and will increase outreach efforts this summer. The City’s water conservation unit continues to provide free water use efficiency consultations to our customers. Public outreach efforts specific to the proposed outdoor watering restrictions, when implemented, will include social media, publication in local newspapers, mailers, bill notifications, and staff attendance at neighborhood associations to explain the conservation measures.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
1/27/2015
(Attachment A)
Adoption of an Ordinance modifying SMMC 7.16 to enhance water conservation regulations
11/27/2018
(Attachment B)
Sustainable Water Master Plan Update and Pathway to
Water Self-Sufficiency
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The proposed outdoor water restrictions, when implemented to reduce water demand, would have a net negative impact of 3 to 8 percent reduction on the Water and Wastewater Enterprise fund’s revenues. The projected shortfall of roughly $500,000 to
7.A
Packet Pg. 1887
4 of 4
$1.4 million over a 6-month period, depending on the outdoor watering phase implemented, would be offset by reducing operating costs (e.g., delayed maintenance of assets), capital project expenditures, and/or using the water enterprise fund’s rate stability reserve. There is no immediate budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. If water restrictions impact water revenues beyond what can be offset by the above measures, staff will return to City Council with potential options to ensure the stability of the City’s water and wastewater utility services.
Prepared By: Thomas Poon, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Adoption of Ordinance for SMMC 7.16 to enhance water conservation regulations (Web Link)
B. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update (Web Link) C. SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading D. Written Comments
7.A
Packet Pg. 1888
1 of 8
City Council Meeting June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 7.16.020 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO UPDATE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the State of California has experienced higher average temperatures, more intense heat waves, devastating wildfires, and historic droughts due to climate change impacts; and
WHEREAS, persistent and worsening drought conditions has affected the availability and reliability of regional and local water supplies; and WHEREAS, the State of California and regional water suppliers are implementing water shortage contingency plan actions and major water restrictions, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, to preserve limited water supplies for health and safety purposes; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2014, the City declared a Stage 2 Water Shortage, as outlined in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan; and WHEREAS, since the declaration of a State 2 Water Shortage, the City continues to maintain the water conservation actions for a Stage 2 Water Shortage as recently adopted by City Council on April 26, 2022; and
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 2 of 8
WHEREAS, the City’s Water Resources Division seeks to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.16.020 to provide flexibility to implement more stringent water conservation and water use efficiency efforts to align with regional and/or state-wide water conservation efforts to ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply is maintained during ongoing and persistent drought conditions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 7.16.020 is hereby amended to read as follows:
7.16.020 Water conservation requirements.
(a) Landscape.
(1) Watering Hours. No lawn or landscape area shall be spray irrigated between the hours of nine ten a.m. and five four p.m. on any day. This subsection shall not apply to any drip irrigation system approved by the City Manager or designee or unless the City Manager or designee approves in writing an exemption, consistent with the policies of this Chapter, for irrigation system maintenance, leak repair or new planting of low water usage plants or if recycled water is utilized as permitted by law.
(2) Irrigation Overspray and Runoff. Water shall not spray or flow to any impermeable private or public surface including, but not limited to, walkways, driveways, sidewalks, alleys, streets, or storm drains. (3) Limitations on Sprinkler Use. All irrigating of landscape with potable water using spray head sprinklers and bubblers shall be limited to no more than ten (10) minutes per watering day per station. All irrigating of landscape with potable water using standard rotors and multi-stream rotary heads
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 3 of 8
shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes per cycle and up to two (2) cycles per watering day per station.
(4) Outdoor Watering Restrictions. The Department of Public Works – Water Resources Division shall monitor and evaluate the projected supply and demand for water and shall recommend to the City Manager or designee the extent of the conservation required for the Department of Public Works - Water Resources Division to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. The City Manager or designee shall notify the City Council of the recommendation as to the particular phase of water conservation, as more specifically set forth, below, that should be implemented. Thereafter, the City Manager may, with the concurrence of the Council, order that the appropriate phase of water conservation be implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Section. Said order shall be published one time only in a daily newspaper of general circulation and shall become effective fourteen (14) days from such publication. The provisions for Phase I through III Outdoor Water Restrictions do not apply to drip irrigation supplying water to a food source or to a hand-held hose watering of vegetation or tree, if the hose is equipped with a positive quick release shutoff valve or nozzle, which is allowed every day except between the hours of nine a.m. and five p.m.
A. Phase I Outdoor Watering Restrictions. Outdoor watering limited to 3 days per week. Under Phase I outdoor water restriction, addresses that end with an odd number will be allowed outdoor watering on Monday-Wednesday-Friday and addresses that end with an even number will be allowed outdoor watering on Tuesday-ThursdaySaturday.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1891 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 4 of 8
B. Phase II Outdoor Watering Restrictions. Outdoor watering limited to 2 days per week. Under Phase II outdoor water restriction, addresses that end with an odd number will be allowed outdoor watering on Monday-Wednesday and addresses that end with an even number will be allowed outdoor watering on TuesdayThursday.
C. Phase III Outdoor Watering Restrictions. Outdoor watering limited to 1 day per week. Under Phase III outdoor water restriction, addresses that end with an odd number will be allowed outdoor watering on Monday and addresses that end with an even number will be allowed outdoor watering on Tuesday.
D. Phase IV Outdoor Watering Restrictions. No outdoor watering will be allowed unless exceptions, if any, are approved in writing by the City Manager or designee.
E. Penalties. Any failure to comply with a Phase I through IV outdoor watering restriction shall be subject to the penalties outlined in Section 7.16.070.
F. Hardship Waiver. If, due to unique circumstances, a Phase I through Phase IV outdoor watering restriction would result in undue hardship to a person using water, or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water users, then the person may apply for a waiver to the requirements as provided in this Section. The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using water, or to property upon
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1892 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 5 of 8
which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user's property.
G. Waiver Form. Application for a waiver must be on a form prescribed by the City Manager or designee.
H. Supporting documentation. The application must be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information, including a written statement of the applicant.
I. Required findings for Waiver. An application for a waiver will be denied unless the City Manager or designee, finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property, as shown by the records of the City or its agent, all of the following:
i. That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses;
ii. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this Section would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to residents and businesses generally;
iii. That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the ability of the City to effectuate the purposes of this Section, and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1893 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 6 of 8
iv. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the waiver is sought is not common, recurrent or general in nature.
(b) Cleaning. No person shall:
(1) Use water to wash, clean or clear any sidewalks, streets, walkways, patios, driveways, alleys or parking areas, whether paved or unpaved, with a hose connected to a domestic potable water source. Exception: pressure washing may be permitted in writing by the City Manager or designee, consistent with the policies of this Chapter, with approved equipment and if all wastewater is recovered for recycling, disposed of in the sanitary sewer, or directed to landscaping. In no event shall any water so used be permitted to run off into streets, alleys or storm drains
(2) Wash or clean with water any vehicle, including, but not limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or unmotorized, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hose equipped with a positive action quick release shutoff valve or nozzle. This subsection shall not apply to any commercial car washing facility which utilizes a recycling system to capture or reuse water. In no event shall any water so used be permitted to run off into streets, alleys or storm drains. (c) Water Features and Water Recreation Facilities. No person shall:
(1) Fill, for the first time, any water feature such as a fountain, pond, lake or water display unless the water feature is constructed with a water recycling system and, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a fee is paid to the City Manager or designee equal to the first year water consumption of the water feature as determined by the City Manager or designee.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1894 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 7 of 8
(2) Fill, for the first time, any water recreation facility such as a hot tub, spa, permanent swimming or wading pool unless the water recreation facility is constructed, installed or equipped with a cover to reduce water loss due to evaporation and, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a fee is paid to the City Manager or designee equal to the first year water consumption of the water recreation facility, as determined by the City Manager or designee. (d) Waste, Ponding and Leaks. No person shall:
(1) Cause, permit or allow water to leak from any exterior or interior pipe, hose or plumbing fixture of any kind whatsoever.
(2) Cause, permit or allow water to flow from any source on private or public property into gutters, streets, alleys or storm drains except as a result of rainfall or from a source approved in writing by the City Manager or designee, consistent with the policies of this Chapter.
(3) Cause, permit or allow water from any source to pond on private or public property except as a result of rainfall or unless approved in writing by the City Manager or designee, consistent with the policies of this Chapter. (4) Cause, permit or allow water to flow from any source on private or public property without beneficial use.
(e) Eating and Drinking Establishments. All eating and drinking establishments of any kind whatsoever including, but not limited to, any restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria, bar or club, whether public or private, shall only provide drinking water to any person upon receipt of an express request.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1895 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 8 of 8
(f) Exceptions. The provisions of this Section are not applicable to the uses of water which are necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential governmental services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 1896 Attachment: SMMC 7.16.020_Water Conservation Regulations_Ordinance_First Reading [Revision 11] (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
After hundreds of millions invested for water self‐sufficiency, including via stiff residential rate hikes, now we should mimic the cutbacks of communities around us that did not make the investments? What an embarrassment. Let’s make sure the scheduled future rate hikes are rescinded until a more effective strategy is realized, as this recommendation represents a clear vote of ‘no confidence’ in the current strategy and investments.
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
Item 7.A
06/14/22
1 of 1 Item 7.A
06/14/22
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 1897 Attachment: Written Comments (5122 : Emergency Ordinance - Water Conservation Update) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions related to the General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt two resolutions to:
1. Call for a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022; and
2. Request that the Municipal Election be consolidated with the Los Angeles (LA) County Statewide General Election and request services from the LA County Registrar-Recorder for the General Municipal Election.
Executive Summary
Santa Monica’s next General Municipal Election will be held November 8, 2022. In preparation for this election, staff asks Council to adopt two resolutions. The first resolution calls for the election to be held, and the second authorizes and requests that the election be consolidated with the LA County Statewide General Election and requests County election services.
Discussion
Section 1400 of the City Charter provides that General Municipal Elections for the filling of elective office shall be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November of each even numbered year. The City of Santa Monica has been consolidating municipal elections and obtaining services from the LA County RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk since the mid 1980’s. As a result, it is necessary to adopt
8.A
Packet Pg. 1898
2 of 4
resolutions calling the election and requesting consolidation with the Statewide General election and election services from the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.
Resolutions Calling Election and Requesting Consolidation and Election Services The first resolution (Attachment A) calls for the General Election and gives notice that three City Council seats, three Rent Control Board seats, four Santa Monica-Malibu School District Board of Education seats, and four Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustees seats are to be filled at the November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election. For this election, there is no local emergency order suspending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) 11.04.010 so the requirement to qualify for the ballot reverts to gathering signatures from no less than 100 registered voters in the office’s jurisdiction. If City staff have potential revenue measures or charter amendments to present for the ballot, they will return with them at a later meeting.
At the time this report was written, no initiatives have qualified to be placed on the ballot. However, staff is aware of an initiative being circulated to establish added funding for homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and schools by amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 6.96 to provide a third-tier transfer tax rate for property transfers of $8,000,000 or more with an 11-member resident oversight committee. Should the initiative qualify, staff will return with a staff report and resolution at the next available regular meeting. All initiatives and City-sponsored ballot measures must be submitted to the County by August 12, 2022.
The second resolution (Attachment B) requests that the LA County Board of Supervisors approve the consolidation of the City’s General Municipal Election with the statewide General Election to be held on the same date, and that the statewide General Election and General Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were one election. The resolution also requests that the LA County Board of Supervisors direct the LA County Registrar-Record/County Clerk to provide all necessary election services, to the extent determined necessary by the Santa Monica City Clerk/Elections Official, to prepare, print, translate and mail sample ballots and polling place information to the registered voters of the City.
8.A
Packet Pg. 1899
3 of 4
Elections and COVID-19
City Clerk staff will return with an in-person Candidate Workshop on the first day of the Nomination Period on July 18, 2022 and make a recording available to potential candidates who are unable to attend in-person. Staff will schedule appointments with candidates to issue nomination papers during business hours and accept Nomination Forms and Petitions by appointment before the 5:00 p.m. August 7, 2020, deadline.
The office will host a Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) workshop for Candidates/Treasurers in August (date to the determined) and will work with the FPPC to offer this as a webinar if a local workshop is not possible.
The notice of the election will be published in the local newspapers and mailed to neighborhood groups and interested entities. All election information will be available on www.santamonica.gov, and the election will be promoted in the Seascape newsletter, the City’s social media sites and the local newspapers. Staff will resume with in-person voter registration efforts, including on September 20, 2022, National Voter Registration Day, and prior to the October 24, 2022, voter registration deadline.
Because COVID-19 is still a concern, all LA County Vote Centers will follow current public health and safety guidelines and strongly encourage voters to wear a face mask.
Additionally, the City’s four Vote-By-Mail Drop Boxes by the Main Library, Montana Library, Virginia Avenue Park and Marine Park will also be available for the election.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Funding for the election costs are included in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, pending Council budget adoption. Also included in the proposed budget is the reimbursement revenue for election costs related to non-City agencies.
8.A
Packet Pg. 1900
4 of 4
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution Calling the Election
B. Proposed Resolution for Election Services
8.A
Packet Pg. 1901
1 City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, FOR
ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ELECTIONS CODE AND PROVISIONS OF THE SANTA MONICA CITY
CHARTER
WHEREAS, City Charter Section 1400 provides that a General Municipal Election shall be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November of each even numbered year for the purpose of electing officers;and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the City Charter, three members of the Council shall be elected to a full term of four-years,; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the City Charter, three members of the Rent Control Board shall be elected for a full term of four years; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the City Charter and Section 5220 of the Education Code, four members of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education shall be elected for a full term of four years; WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 72034 of the Education Code and resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Santa Monica Community College District, four members of the Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustees shall be elected for a full term of four years; and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Calling the Election [Revision 3] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 2 WHEREAS, the Education Code and the Elections Code authorize the consolidation of the election of members of the Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustees and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education with the General Municipal Election.
WHEREAS, Section 12109 of the Elections Code authorizes the City Council to provide that all ballots cast at the General Municipal Election be counted at a central counting place; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A General Municipal Election shall be held in the City of Santa Monica on November 8, 2022, which is the election required for the purposes of electing three members of the City of Santa Monica City Council for four-year terms expiring in 2026; three members of the City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board for four-year terms expiring in 2026; four members of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education for four-year terms expiring in 2026; and, four members of the Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustees for fouryear terms expiring in 2026, and the placing before the voters of qualified initiatives and referendums.
SECTION 2. The ballots to be used at the General Municipal Election shall be both as to form and matter contained therein such as may be required by law.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment, and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Calling the Election [Revision 3] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 3 paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the General Municipal Election.
SECTION 4. The polls for the General Municipal Election shall be open at 7:00 a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously until 8:00 p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed except as provided in Elections Code Section 14401.
SECTION 5. The notice of the time and place of holding of the General Municipal Election is hereby given; and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give such further or additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner required by law.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 12109, the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give notice of the central counting place in the time, form, and manner required by law.
SECTION 7. An election for members of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education and the Santa Monica College District Board of Trustees shall be consolidated with the General Municipal Election. Separate ballots shall be provided for those voters who reside outside the City of Santa Monica pursuant to Elections Code Section 10409.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Resolution to the Board of Supervisors and to the Registrar of Voters/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles.
SECTION 9. In the event the General Municipal Election is consolidated with the
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Calling the Election [Revision 3] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 4 Statewide General Election on the same date, the provisions of this Resolution which are applicable only in the event the election is conducted by the City shall be of no force or effect.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Proposed Resolution Calling the Election [Revision 3] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 1 City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, WITH THE
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10403, AND TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO
THE CITY RELATING TO THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica has called a General Municipal Election in the City of Santa Monica to be held on November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing officers of the City of Santa Monica, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica Community College District Board, and the Santa MonicaMalibu Unified School District Board of Education; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date; that within the City of Santa Monica and the School and Community College Districts, the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same; that the Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election; and that the Statewide General Election and General Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Proposed Resolution for Election Services [Revision 2] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 2 WHEREAS, in the course of conduct of the General Municipal Election and in relation thereto, it will be necessary to mail sample ballots and polling place information to the registered voters of the City of Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, it will facilitate the mailing of sample ballots if the Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles makes available to the City of Santa Monica the computer record of the names and addresses of all eligible registered voters so that labels may be printed for attaching to self-mailer sample ballot pamphlets; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica desires the Registrar of Voters to furnish such other election assistance as may be authorized by state law; and WHEREAS, all necessary expense in performing these services shall be paid by the City of Santa Monica.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code Section 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing officers of the City of Santa Monica, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica Community College District Board, and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education. The consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Elections Code Section 10418. The offices to be voted upon at the General Municipal Election are as follows: Member of the City Council – 3; Member
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Proposed Resolution for Election Services [Revision 2] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 3 of the Rent Control Board – 3; Member of the Board of Trustees for the Santa Monica Community College District – 4; Member of the Board of Education for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District – 4. The names of candidates appearing on the ballot shall be filed with the Registrar of Voters of the County of Los Angeles no later than 81 days prior to the General Municipal Election.
SECTION 2. The Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with the Statewide General Election and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one Election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION 3. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.
SECTION 4. The City of Santa Monica recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County of Los Angeles by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County of Los Angeles for any such costs.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to permit the Registrar of Voters to provide the following services to the City to the extent determined necessary by the City Clerk: (1) prepare and furnish to the City of Santa Monica for use in conducting its General Municipal Election the computer record of the names and addresses of eligible registered voters in the City of Santa Monica in order that the City of Santa Monica may print labels to be attached to self-mailer sample ballot pamphlets; (2) furnish to the City of Santa Monica printed indices of the voters to be used by the precinct board at the
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Proposed Resolution for Election Services [Revision 2] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins)) 4 polling places; (3) make available to the City of Santa Monica additional election equipment and assistance according to state law; and (4) provide such other services as may be deemed necessary to reduce the expense and administrative burden of the election.
SECTION 6. The City of Santa Monica shall reimburse the County of Los Angeles for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk is directed to transmit and file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and with the Registrar of Voters.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Proposed Resolution for Election Services [Revision 2] (4865 : November 8, 2022 General Election (5 mins))
13.A
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.A Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024
13.A
Packet Pg. 1910
Revised 6/09/22 at 6pm
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Name Application Date
Jon-Patrick Allem 3/04/2021
Xavier H. Banister 3/07/2022
Elaine V. Barringer 4/05/2021
Margaret Black 3/15/2021
Erin Borda 4/16/2021
Nirvana Bravo Papias 3/19/2021
Elizabeth Brown 3/15/2021
Michael Cahn 3/9/2021
Alok Chanani 3/19/2021
Jeff Chanchuan 3/10/2021
Maria Ochoa Conntreras 4/16/2021
Robert W. Crandall 3/29/2021
Shamshi España 3/19/2021
Jason Feldman 3/15/2021
Shovaughn Fisher 3/03/2021
Albin Gielicz 3/19/2021
Noah Gonzalez 3/15/2021
Stuart B. Graber 6/05/2022
Houman Hemmati 3/08/2021
Douglas Kaplan 3/08/2021
Carolyn Kelly 3/15/2021
Eun Kim 4/16/2021
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: PSROCApplicant List [Revision 1] (5161 : PSROC Appointment 13.A. (5 mins)) Revised
6/09/22 at 6pm
Lucas Kolding 3/02/2022
Joel Koury 4/20/2021
Robert Kronovet 3/09/2021
Jason Lin 3/21/2021
Nicolo Lucente 4/20/2021
Susan Mannara 4/16/2021
David Mendoza 4/27/2021
Jasmine Mercado 4/27/2021
Natasha Millman 4/20/2021
Joshua Moffie 3/31/2021
Matt Neco7/21/2021
Marlene Rico Nord 4/16/2021
Joseph Palazzolo 5/02/2022
Nicolas Pappas 7/21/2021
Michael Payton 3/03/2021
Ivannia A. Perez-Schlamm 3/23/2021
Killeen Pilon 3/04/2021
Jesse Ramirez 4/27/2021
Vivian Roknian 8/12/2021
Carlos M. Samaniego 3/26/2021
David Schlosberg 4/22/2021
Daniel Seizer 4/27/2021
Donald Singer 4/16/2021
Hootie Soleiman 4/15/2021
Paul Song 4/19/2021
Kristi Springer 4/22/2021 Brian Stedge-Stroud 5/21/2022 Robert Swerdlow 3/15/2021
Craig A. Walter 3/10/2022
Benjamin Wilson 3/25/2021
Paul Winnemore 3/24/2022 re-applied
Michele Wittig 11/30/2021
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 1912 Attachment: PSROCApplicant List [Revision 1] (5161 : PSROC Appointment 13.A. (5 mins)) Revised 6/09/22 at 6pm
Enis Yeneriz 4/30/2021
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 55
*Meets 18-22 years old requirement.
*Incumbents listed in redAL
APPLICANTS THAT MEET
REQUIREMENT: 4
*Meets 18-22 years old requirement.
*Meets 18-22 years old requirement
but not a Santa Monica resident.
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 1913 Attachment: PSROCApplicant List [Revision 1] (5161 : PSROC Appointment 13.A. (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: comments on item 13A of the 6/14/22 city council meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members ,
I am writing to express two concerns I have about the vote to take place on Tues., 6/14, to fill a vacancy on the SM Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
The first concern is that there is currently only one Black male on the commission. As a group, they need to have voices on this important and historic commission. To my knowledge, there are two Black men who have applied: Craig A. Walter and Xavier H. Bannister. I hope you will either nominate one of these applicants or, at least, vote for one who is nominated. There is nothing wrong with having two black men on this commission. It would signal to the Committee For Racial Justice that the city council is taking the work of this commission seriously and trying to help it succeed by providing input from a Black male perspective. If this argument is not persuasive to you, I would then ask you to consider another candidate for this position who has years of experience in dealing with police reform issues and would be an active and helpful member to this commission – namely, Michele Wittig. It is important to add another clear voice of reform to this body.
My other related concern is that I noticed Paul Winnemore has submitted an application to become a voting member of the PSROC. My understanding is that the SM Police Officers’ Association was given the opportunity to name who would sit on the commission as a non‐voting member. He was their and Chief Batista’s choice. If he is placed into a voting slot on the commission, would not the POA expect to be able to nominate another non‐voting person to that slot? All of this would raise further questions about whether or not there is a good faith attempt in Santa Monica to have civilian oversight of police.
Again, I urge you to give support to either Craig, Xavier, or Michele tomorrow night.
Joanne Berlin, Coordinator
Committee For Racial Justice
Item 13.A
06/14/22
1 of 1 Item 13.A
06/14/22
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 1914 Attachment: Written Comments (5161 : PSROC Appointment 13.A. (5 mins))
13.B
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.B On May 10, 2022, the City Council directed the City Manager to return with a study session as soon as practicable on various items (e.g.., municipal code changes, taxes, permitting process, etc.) that are necessary to be part of any future action taken by the City Council to allow for any business or businesses involved in the sale, delivery, themed special events, and/or consumption of nonmedicinal cannabis in the City of Santa Monica. This item is a request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre, and Negrete asking the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare an ordinance enacting a tax on businesses engaged in the sale, distribution, delivery, and consumption of cannabis. The ordinance shall be prepared in a timely manner for the City Council to consider placing the tax on the November 8, 2022 ballot. The tax should be structured as a general tax and have no sunset date. Implementation of certain aspects of the cannabis tax will be contingent on future actions taken by City Council resulting from the study session referenced above.
13.B
Packet Pg. 1915
13.C
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.C Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra that the Council direct the City Manager to annually prepare and publish a Diversity Report enabling the City Council and the residents of Santa Monica to evaluate the diversity of the City's employees, and the hiring, promotion and firing of City employees during the previous year. The contemplated report should provide at a minimum, age, race and gender. To the extent possible, the City Manager shall also evaluate the potential to include other demographic data including, but not limited to, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and national origin.
13.C
Packet Pg. 1916
13.D
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.D Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra for the City Attorney to return to City Council with an ordinance amending Section
2.24.080 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code limiting the City Attorney’s ability, without City Council approval, to enter into any contract providing for payment of any legal services for new legal matters at hourly rates in excess of the following: •$400 per hour for attorneys with at least ten years' experience engaged in the practice of law; • $300 per hour for attorneys with less than ten years' experience engaged in the practice of law; • $400 per hour for consultants and experts who are not attorneys and are not employees of any law firm; and • $300 per hour for all other consultants and experts, and all investigators. The maximum hourly rates above shall be adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States city average, as published by the United States Department of Labor. Limited exceptions shall include specialized legal work, such as bonds, tax opinions, employment law, CEQA, environmental remediation, and water rights, in which the contract counsel will incur no more than twenty hours of work on the matter.
13.D
Packet Pg. 1917
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Items 13-D and 13-E, 6/14/22
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers,
Items 13‐D and 13‐E on your June 14th agenda, promulgated by Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra, strike me as short‐sighted and in the long run disadvantageous to the taxpayers of Santa Monica. What is the purpose of almost immediately putting constraints on a newly‐hired City Attorney? And why should Councilmembers who choose to sue the city they serve be treated with kid gloves?
In the big picture I don't understand the underlying goal of eviscerating the City Attorney's Office: dedicated public servants who could earn four to five times more in the private sector and who have, among a myriad of accomplishments, procured hundreds of millions of dollars from polluters of our local aquifers and negotiated a Federal consent decree which allows for local control of billions of dollars of land at Santa Monica Airport. Those are pretty good deals for the taxpayers.
But let's look at the particulars. Item 13‐D would cap expenditures for outside counsel at $400 per hour. The City is routinely sued by attorneys who earn over $1000 an hour; responding with lawyers who earn less in a free market because they are less qualified is like sending someone into a knife fight with one hand tied behind their back. So the taxpayers are likely to pay out more in settlements and lost cases Consider the specifics of the future use of the airport. Closing it for a use which serves many more residents than it currently does likely entails additional legal work. When I was on the Council our outside aviation experts charged $1200‐1500 per hour and given inflation their rate is likely higher now. So the City Attorney cannot hire similarly experienced outside counsel in the future? One could argue the proposal exempts aviation as "specialized work" even though it's not listed, but it also caps the work of such outside counsel at 20 hours. Does anyone think under 20 hours of work would be required in this scenario? Does anyone under 20 hours of outside legal expertise will be required to go after the polluters of our new water wells?
The proponents of this item will no doubt argue that approval by the City Council would override all these constraints on the City Attorney's office. You've all acknowledged that Council meetings are already too long ‐‐ should there be a new agenda item every time the City needs to litigate over the delivery of a defective fire engine or defend itself in a BBB accident? That's not the way to govern, as it's a slippery slope that leads to micromanaging of the SMPD or Resource Recovery by part‐time policy makers who are not experts in these areas. Instead, hire the best people you can and let the professionals run their departments, including the City Attorney.
And what if someone sues the City over provisions in the City Charter approved by the voters such as rent control? If there are four Councilmembers who are opposed to rent control and refuse to authorize the funds for a defense, wouldn't that be overriding the will of the people?
As for item 13‐E, the City Charter establishes that the Attorney shall "represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices." So are we talking about a Charter amendment to be voted upon Item 13.D
06/14/22
1 of 2 Item 13.D
06/14/22
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 1918 Attachment: Written Comments (5182 : City Attorney Contracting) 2 by the Santa Monicans? Or should any Councilmember who elects to sue the City (and by extension the residents of Santa Monica) put on his or her big boy/big girl pants and acknowledge that such litigation creates adversity. There are no participation trophies in lawsuits.
Please do not approve agenda items 13‐D and 13‐E.
Regards,
Ted Winterer
‐‐
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 13.D
06/14/22
2 of 2 Item 13.D
06/14/22
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 1919 Attachment: Written Comments (5182 : City Attorney Contracting)
13.E
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.E Request of Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra that the Council direct the City Attorney to advise the City Council and provide options for consideration at the July 12, 2022 City Council meeting, including the appointment of independent special counsel, to handle litigation in which the City and one or more members of the City Council are named parties on opposite sides, so as to avoid the City Attorney being adverse to any member(s) of the City Council.
13.E
Packet Pg. 1920
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: David White; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Items 13-D and 13-E, 6/14/22
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers,
Items 13‐D and 13‐E on your June 14th agenda, promulgated by Councilmembers Brock, de la Torre and Parra, strike me as short‐sighted and in the long run disadvantageous to the taxpayers of Santa Monica. What is the purpose of almost immediately putting constraints on a newly‐hired City Attorney? And why should Councilmembers who choose to sue the city they serve be treated with kid gloves?
In the big picture I don't understand the underlying goal of eviscerating the City Attorney's Office: dedicated public servants who could earn four to five times more in the private sector and who have, among a myriad of accomplishments, procured hundreds of millions of dollars from polluters of our local aquifers and negotiated a Federal consent decree which allows for local control of billions of dollars of land at Santa Monica Airport. Those are pretty good deals for the taxpayers.
But let's look at the particulars. Item 13‐D would cap expenditures for outside counsel at $400 per hour. The City is routinely sued by attorneys who earn over $1000 an hour; responding with lawyers who earn less in a free market because they are less qualified is like sending someone into a knife fight with one hand tied behind their back. So the taxpayers are likely to pay out more in settlements and lost cases Consider the specifics of the future use of the airport. Closing it for a use which serves many more residents than it currently does likely entails additional legal work. When I was on the Council our outside aviation experts charged $1200‐1500 per hour and given inflation their rate is likely higher now. So the City Attorney cannot hire similarly experienced outside counsel in the future? One could argue the proposal exempts aviation as "specialized work" even though it's not listed, but it also caps the work of such outside counsel at 20 hours. Does anyone think under 20 hours of work would be required in this scenario? Does anyone under 20 hours of outside legal expertise will be required to go after the polluters of our new water wells?
The proponents of this item will no doubt argue that approval by the City Council would override all these constraints on the City Attorney's office. You've all acknowledged that Council meetings are already too long ‐‐ should there be a new agenda item every time the City needs to litigate over the delivery of a defective fire engine or defend itself in a BBB accident? That's not the way to govern, as it's a slippery slope that leads to micromanaging of the SMPD or Resource Recovery by part‐time policy makers who are not experts in these areas. Instead, hire the best people you can and let the professionals run their departments, including the City Attorney.
And what if someone sues the City over provisions in the City Charter approved by the voters such as rent control? If there are four Councilmembers who are opposed to rent control and refuse to authorize the funds for a defense, wouldn't that be overriding the will of the people?
As for item 13‐E, the City Charter establishes that the Attorney shall "represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices." So are we talking about a Charter amendment to be voted upon Item 13.E
06/14/22
1 of 2 Item 13.E
06/14/22
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Written Comments (5185 : Independent Special Counsel) 2 by the Santa Monicans? Or should any Councilmember who elects to sue the City (and by extension the residents of Santa Monica) put on his or her big boy/big girl pants and acknowledge that such litigation creates adversity. There are no participation trophies in lawsuits.
Please do not approve agenda items 13‐D and 13‐E.
Regards,
Ted Winterer
‐‐
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 13.E
06/14/22
2 of 2 Item 13.E
06/14/22
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Written Comments (5185 : Independent Special Counsel)
13.F
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.F Request of Councilmembers de la Torre and Brock that the City Manager explore and discuss with the California Coastal Commission what is needed to offer free parking in all beach parking lots for all residents who have a street parking permit in good standing. The City Manager will return to City Council with the results of those discussions along with any financial impacts.
13.F
Packet Pg. 1923
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete
Cc: David White
Subject: Oppose 6/14/22 Agenda Item 13-F
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
As a Santa Monica resident who helps lead all kinds of efforts in the community, particularly with youth, for climate actions, I write to oppose the idea of giving certain residents free parking at beach lots. To give some residents free parking is a bad idea, risking more damage to our climate and privileging certain residents over other residents, as well as over non‐resident drivers.
Asking the City Manager to explore this bad idea with the Coastal Commission is also a distraction and, sadly, a waste of resources.
Let’s remember that transportation is a major source of the GHG emissions contaminating our atmosphere, heating up our Earth. In the next eight years we must maximize our reductions if we are to stave off the worst effects of the climate emergency we are experiencing. We need to encourage people not to rely on their individual automobiles for their local trips, including their beach trips.
Heading to our beautiful beach to walk, swim, surf or play in the ocean or on the sand should be a delightful way to relax and to value our Mother Earth and our being a part of her. If a person drives, paying a parking fee is worth it. Obviously, for those who do not drive, there is no parking fee.
I urge the City Council to ask the City Manager to use his time to issue a call to our residents and to others to take advantage of multi‐modal means of getting to the beach. From ride‐sharing, walking, biking, scooting, to riding the bus & shuttles, etc. there are many beneficial, sustainable means of transportation.
With respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica resident
SaMo Safe Streets Alliance Co‐Chair
Climate Action Santa Monica Advisor
Item 13.F
06/14/22
1 of 1 Item 13.F
06/14/22
13.F.a
Packet Pg. 1924 Attachment: Written Comments (5186 : Beach Parking for residents)
13.G
June 14, 2022
Council Meeting: June 14, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Date: June 14, 2022
13.G Request of Councilmembers Negrete and Parra and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan that the City Manager prepare a report pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code on an initiative with the following title prepared by the City Attorney that is seeking to qualify and be placed on the November 8, 2022 ballot: AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
ADDED FUNDING FOR HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND SCHOOLS BY AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.96 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE WITH AN ELEVEN MEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The report prepared pursuant to Section 9212 of the California Elections Code shall be presented to City Council as soon as possible, but not later than July 26, 2022.
13.G
Packet Pg. 1925
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH ADDED FUNDING FOR HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SCHOOLS BY AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.96 TO PROVIDE A THIRD TIER TRANSFER TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERS OF $8,000,000 OR MORE WITH AN ELEVENMEMBER RESIDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 sets the City’s real estate transfer tax. Currently, there are two tax rates. The First Tier Tax Rate ($3.00 per $1000 of value transferred) applies to transfers under $5,000,000. The Second Tier Tax Rate ($6.00 per $1000 of value transferred) applies to transfers of $5,000,000 or more. This measure would amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.96 to establish a new Third Tier Tax Rate for transfers of $8,000,000 or more.
The proposed Third Tier Tax Rate would be $56.00 per $1000 of value transferred.
This measure would add Chapter 4.90 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish: (1) a Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund; and (2) a new School Fund. These funds would be funded by the Third Tier Tax Rate. Out of the Third Tier Tax rate of 5.6%, 5% would be allocated to the School Fund and the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund (“Allocated Funds”) and the remaining .6% would go to the General Fund.
The measure contains a specific annual distribution of the Allocated Funds. The first $10,000,000 of Allocated Funds must be deposited into the School Fund. The next $40,000,000 of Allocated Funds collected each year must be deposited into the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund. Any Allocated Funds collected above $50,000,000 each year would be deposited 20% into the School Fund and 80% into the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund.
The measure would require the City to provide the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District the Allocated Funds in the School Fund each year. In the event of a unification of Malibu schools, the school district serving residents of Santa Monica would be entitled to receive the School Funds. Any school district that is located outside of Santa Monica would not be entitled to any of the School Funds.
The measure allows the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund to be used to provide ongoing or emergency income assistance, acquire and rehabilitate existing rental properties as deed-restricted affordable housing, create new deed-restricted housing, and fund programs and services designed to preserve and improve affordable housing for lower income households.
The measure would establish an eleven-member Resident Oversight Committee to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding guidelines for eligible expenditures, local priorities and preferences, award procedures, budgeting, program evaluation, and public reporting procedures. The City’s auditors will audit the Homelessness Prevention and
13.G.a
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY (5187 : 30-day Report) Affordable Housing Fund annually and publicly provide the results to the Resident Oversight Committee and the Audit Subcommittee.
The School Fund and the Homelessness Prevention and Affordable Housing Fund are intended to provide additional support and not replace any existing funding under current agreements or prior advisory measures.
13.G.a
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1928
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1929
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1930
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1931
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1932
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1933
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1934
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1935
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1936
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1937
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1938
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1939
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1940
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1941
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1942
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1943
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1944
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1945
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1946
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1947
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1948
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1949
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1950
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1951
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
13.G.b
Packet Pg. 1952
Attachment: Full text (5187 : 30-day Report)
6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1. 1/3 Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
9200.
9201.
9202.
9202.5.
9203.
9204.
9205.
Up^ Add To My Favorites
ELECTIONS CODE - ELEC
DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS [9000 - 9610] ( Division 9 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) CHAPTER 3. Municipal Elections [9200 - 9295] ( Chapter 3 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) ARTICLE 1. Initiative [9200 - 9226] ( Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. ) Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city pursuant to this article. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of the city by a petition filed with the elections official of the legislative body, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, after being signed by not less than the number of voters specified in this article. The petition may be in separate sections, providing that the petition complies with this article. The first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of the measure. The petition sections shall be designated in the manner set forth in Section 9020. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
(a) Before circulating an initiative petition in any city, the proponents of the matter shall file with the elections official a notice of intention to do so, which shall be accompanied by the written text of the initiative and may be accompanied by a written statement not in excess of 500 words, setting forth the reasons for the proposed petition. The notice shall be signed by at least one, but not more than three, proponents and shall be in substantially the following form:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of ____ for the purpose of ____. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
(b) Any person filing a notice of intent with the elections official shall pay a fee to be established by the legislative body not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) to be refunded to the filer if, within one year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
From the time materials pertaining to an initiative petition are filed pursuant to Section 9202 until the day after the elections official determines that the initiative petition does not contain the minimum number of signatures required, the day after the election at which the initiative measure is put before the voters, or the day after the proposed ordinance is adopted by the legislative body of the city after being submitted to the legislative body of the city pursuant to Section 9201, as applicable, the elections official shall do both of the following:
(a) Keep on file at his or her office the notice of intention, written text of the initiative, and written statement setting forth the reasons for the proposed petition, if any, that the proponents of the initiative measure filed with the elections official pursuant to Section 9202. (b) Furnish copies of the materials he or she is required to keep on file pursuant to subdivision (a) to any person upon request. The elections official may charge a fee to a person obtaining copies pursuant to this subdivision. The fee may not exceed the actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copies. (Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 240, Sec. 2. (AB 1851) Effective January 1, 2013.) (a) Any person who is interested in any proposed measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the elections official with a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This request shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the measure. The elections official shall immediately transmit a copy of the proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the city elections official a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any other title of the proposed measure and shall express in 500 words or less the purpose of the proposed measure. In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure. (b) The elections official shall furnish a copy of the ballot title and summary to the person filing the proposed measure. The person proposing the measure shall, prior to its circulation, place upon each section of the petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top of each page of the petition on which signatures are to appear, in roman boldface type not smaller than 11 point, the ballot title prepared by the city attorney. The text of the measure shall be printed in type not smaller than 8 point. The heading of the proposed measure shall be in a boldface type in substantially the following form:
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. This title and summary must also be printed across the top of each page of the petition whereon signatures are to appear.)
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 563, Sec. 7. (SB 47) Effective January 1, 2020.) Any elector of the city may seek a writ of mandate requiring the ballot title or summary prepared by the city attorney to be amended. The court shall expedite hearing on the writ. A peremptory writ of mandate shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the ballot title or summary is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 9203. (Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 237, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2003.) A notice of intention and the title and summary of the proposed measure shall be published or posted or both as follows:
(a) If there is a newspaper of general circulation, as described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, adjudicated as such, the notice, title, and summary shall be published therein at least once. (b) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, the notice, title, and summary shall be published at least once, in a newspaper circulated within the city and adjudicated as being of general circulation within the county in which the city is located and the notice, Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report) 6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1. 2/3 9206.
9207.
9208.
9209.
9210.
9211.
9212.
9213.
title, and summary shall be posted in three (3) public places within the city, which public places shall be those utilized for the purpose of posting ordinances as required in Section 36933 of the Government Code.
(c) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, and there is no newspaper of general circulation adjudicated as such within the county, circulated within the city, then the notice, title, and summary shall be posted in the manner described in subdivision (b).
This section does not require the publication or posting of the text of the proposed measure. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 248, Sec. 1. (SB 327) Effective January 1, 2012.) Within 10 days after the date of publication or posting, or both, of the notice of intention and title and summary, the proponents shall file a copy of the notice and title and summary as published or posted together with an affidavit made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published or, if the notice was posted, by a voter of the city, certifying to the fact of publication or posting.
If the notice and title and summary are both published and posted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9205, the proponents shall file affidavits as required by this section made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published certifying to the fact that the notice was published and by a voter of the city certifying to the fact that the notice was posted.
These affidavits, together with a copy of the notice of intention and title and summary, shall be filed with the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours as posted. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The proponents may commence to circulate the petitions among the voters of the city for signatures by any registered voter of the city after publication or posting, or both, as required by Section 9205, of the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. Each section of the petition shall bear a copy of the notice of intention and the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Signatures upon petitions and sections of petitions shall be secured, and the petition, together with all sections of the petition, shall be filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the title and summary, or after termination of any action for a writ of mandate pursuant to Section 9204, and, if applicable, after receipt of an amended title or summary or both, whichever occurs later. Petitions and sections thereof shall be filed in the office of the elections official during normal office hours as posted. If the petitions are not filed within the time permitted by this section, the petitions shall be void for all purposes. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures. This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as set forth in Section 9022.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 278, Sec. 20. (SB 213) Effective January 1, 2014.) The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by a person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents. All sections of the petition shall be filed at one time. Once filed, a petition section shall not be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is presented for filing, the elections official shall do all of the following:
(a) Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published. (b) Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, he or she shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall be deemed as filed on that date. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, does not equal or exceed the minimum number of signatures required, the official shall not take further action. (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 58, Sec. 10. (AB 3259) Effective January 1, 2019.) After the petition has been filed, as herein provided, the elections official shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115, except that for the purposes of this section, references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9215, the legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs. (4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment. (6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. (b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition. (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 748, Sec. 5. (AB 765) Effective January 1, 2018.) On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year, the elections official of each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing the following information:
(a) The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the preceding two calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot, and the number of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report) 6/9/22, 6:19 PM Codes Display Text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=9.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=1. 3/3 9215.
9215.5.
9216.
9217.
9218.
9221.
9222.
9223.
9224.
9226.
(b) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (c) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, the legislative body shall do one of the following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented. (b) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405. (c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b). (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 748, Sec. 7. (AB 765) Effective January 1, 2018.) The proponent of an initiative may withdraw the initiative at any time before the 88th day before the election, whether or not the petition has already been found sufficient by the elections official.
(Added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 155, Sec. 2. (SB 1153) Effective January 1, 2019.) In cities having a mayor, or like officer, with the veto power, when the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed, the failure of the legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of this article. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election, but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any 12- month period at a special election under the provisions of this article. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended, or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of voting on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution. The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election. (Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 371, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2003.) Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be submitted to the voters of a city at any election, the elections official of the legislative body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The enacting clause of an ordinance submitted to the voters of a city shall be substantially in the following form:
“The people of the City of ________ do ordain as follows:”. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
This article does not apply to any statewide initiative measure. (Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
13.G.c
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: EC 9200 (5187 : 30-day Report) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre Cc: Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please PASS the motion to create an alternative measure advanced by Councilmember Brock for the November ballot - Zane Letter Rebuttal
EXTERNAL
Mayor Pro Temp Kristen McCowan, Members, Santa Monica City Council
Re: Denny Zane Objection to Councilmember Brock’s motion I take strong issue with Mr. Zane’s spurious attack on Councilmember Brock’s real estate transfer tax (RETT) proposal as well as his superficial and uninformed defense of the competing Himmelrich RETT proposal in his June 2, 2022 letter to Council.
Spurious Need for More Santa Monica Revenue
Mr. Zane’s entire economic argument about the need for the funds is entirely spurious. Resources for all of Mr. Zane’s listed “needs” are already present and sufficient. In pointing out that Santa Monica would rank in the top 10 of 121 major cities nationwide in revenue per capita and it would be ranked #4 among major and smaller wealthy cities in California. Santa Monica does not have a revenue problem. The draft FY23 budget indicates the City is within 5% of the its historic pre‐pandemic high revenue. It would be the City’s 2nd highest budget ever! It has a spending control and resource effectiveness problem.
When the spending effectiveness issue was directly raised with Ms. Himmelrich in the June 2, 2022 North of Montana Association (NOMA) meeting, Ms. Himmelrich concurred that inefficient City spending was a key issue. She noted that she had “tried” to address it during her tenure on the Council and that it predated her election to the Council.
Item 13.G
06/14/22
1 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) 2 School Funding
As to the schools, total Santa Monica‐Malibu unified School District (SMMUSD) funding per enrolled K‐12 student is 29% above the state average, roughly on par with #8 Massachusetts (California is #18). SMMUSD spends over 200% of the amount spent in Arizona or Nevada. Moreover, SMMUSD has been singled out in a 2019 Standard & Poors credit report as being highly unusual in the amount of supplemental revenue funding it receives on top of standard funding from the high levels of property taxes in the City. Like the City, the school district is extremely well funded. Also like the City, it too has a significant spending control problem.
Consequently, the $10 million allocated to SMMUSD by the Himmelrich proposal can only be interpreted as an attempt to use public funds to buy political support for a private initiative.
Reliable Housing and Community Development Spending
The City has spent $1.4 billion since 2004 on housing and community development (HCD). In the 5 years preceding the FY21, the HCD spend has reliably averaged $60 million per year under the current City funding structure. With the City budget on the verge of breaking all‐time records in the following couple of years, there will be no problem in maintaining, and increasing, these spends, as well as their effectiveness, with existing funding sources.
Housing Assistance Priorities
In fact, the Himmelrich proposal is marketed primarily as a policy response to “rent burdened” households in the City. BUT it subordinates that issue to the high‐cost acquisition of existing units for conversion to affordable, and the building of new high‐cost affordable housing projects that benefit non‐residents. This bait‐and‐ switch language obscures the fact that affordable housing projects provide benefits to the smallest number of primarily non‐Santa Monica residents due to their cost.
Item 13.G
06/14/22
2 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) 3 As to affordable housing, the City has done more than its fair share, building more than 4,000 affordable units since the 1980s. This represents roughly 10% of the City’s entire multi‐family housing unit inventory!
Moreover, the City could reprioritize rental assistance TODAY with the resources within the spend of the City’s existing HCD average annual spend to benefit a much larger group of Santa Monica residents rather than focusing on building new (very expensive) projects that do not benefit existing residents.
Santa Monica’s historically balanced approach must be maintained for the sake of all its residents.
State “Mandate” as an Excuse
Mr. Zane’s use of the current unfunded state mandates is as unreasonable and entirely unsupported as the mandates themselves. They place an entirely disproportionate burden on Santa Monica. Los Angeles has located almost its entire Affordable Housing Overlay in the San Fernando Valley, leaving Santa Monica alone on the Westside. This is entirely unacceptable. Prior City councils had plenty of opportunity to object to this outlandish state bullying and chose not to do so. Continuation of this bad policy is not an option for the City.
Mr. Zane’s use of the unsupportable (in both theory and execution) state mandates is completely self‐serving support for his organization’s political agenda.
Disingenuous (and Uninformed) Justification of the Scope of the Himmelrich Tax
Mr. Zane tries to justify the Himmelrich tax as a luxury tax impacting a small number of people. His complete lack of understanding (or intentional misdirection) about the implication of this nefarious concept is nothing short of astounding. By providing a massive incentive for legal avoidance of sale transfer recording (which the Himmelrich proposal explicitly endorses with the §6.96.080 Partnerships clause) of the highest value properties in the City, the Himmelrich proposal guarantees that property tax reassessments, which are also triggered by Item 13.G
06/14/22
3 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) 4 sale transfer recordings will decline. That is a key source for schools and the City itself. the question must be asked as to why such a provision was included to begin with.
And, Mr. Zane fails to mention that exclusion of the highest value properties was political, intended to mute opposition to the tax by big investors in the City and discriminate against resident homeowners, who are less able to mount any resistance. And, as there is no inflation indexing, more properties each year would get ensnared in this tax, regardless of how long the property was owned. Residents that use their homes for shelter will not be able to avoid the tax while commercial properties can structure ownership around it.
Moreover, by moving towards direct taxation of the residents, the Himmelrich Tax disincentivizes the City from fixing it’s destroyed downtown economic engine that is incurring tax revenue opportunity costs of between $25 million and $40 million per year, just about the same revenues as the Himmelrich Tax assumes.
Mr. Zane fails to point out that the Himmelrich Tax would make Santa Monica the highest RETT taxed City ion the state up to $25 million and just below San Francisco above that. Santa Monica is currently #14 in the state with its existing RETT.
The Brock RETT Proposal’s Inclusion of Resident Values
To be clear, Councilmember Brock’s proposal does address the absolute key priorities THE TAXPAYING RESIDENTS have demanded through their elected representatives:
• Reducing crime
• Enhancing public safety
o Traffic safety improvements around schools including crossing guards • Making public areas safer cleaner
• Addressing problems created by our homeless population that we need to try and solve by giving them more help
o Police department homeless liaison team
Item 13.G
06/14/22
4 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) 5 o Fire department's crisis response unit
o Funding for transitional housing and shelters within our City • Restoring library services
• Enhancing after‐school programs
The Brock proposal is a funding stopgap until the City gets its financial house in order. That needs to happen very soon. It is currently a municipal embarrassment, acknowledged by Mayor Himmelrich. His proposal therefore also needs a sunset date.
Mr. Zane’s note must be recognized for what it is, an entirely political‐driven attempt to further Ms. Himmelrich’s personal initiative, which will place the City on a destructive path impacting the quality of life of all residents, almost entirely at the expense of homeowners.
Ms. Himmelrich has repeatedly professed to desperately want to avoid created an economically walled off City of the very rich and everyone else. Yet that is EXACTLY what her tax proposal sets the City on course to do with the shift to direct taxation of residents, especially homeowners.
This divisive war on homeowners must stop, immediately. It is exacerbating the profound disunity in this City, which is the opposite of the lip service provided by Ms. Himmelrich, and is obviously endorsed by Mr. Zane and his organization.
The Himmelrich initiative is being marketed as reflecting the City’s values, but the proposal entirely shields the resulting cash flow from the City’s elected representatives’ spending priorities, which negates the democratic expression of the City’s values. That is a cost no one in the City can afford.
I strongly urge the Council to direct City staff to complete its preparation of the Brock initiative as a council sponsored measure for the November general election.
Respectfully,
Item 13.G
06/14/22
5 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) 6 Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
Reference:
https://smmirror.com/2022/04/sma‐r‐t‐column‐new‐city‐financial‐plan‐the‐ resident‐homeowner‐bank‐part‐ii‐who‐pays‐the‐proposed‐transfer‐tax‐and‐ where‐does‐the‐money‐go/
Item 13.G
06/14/22
6 of 6 Item 13.G
06/14/22
13.G.d
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Written Comments (5187 : 30-day Report) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2022
Agenda Item: 14.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: 14. Written Public Input
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
14.A
Packet Pg. 1962
1 Vernice Hankins
From: FRANCINE LYNESS <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Homeless Liaison expanded hours advised
EXTERNAL
I moved into magnolia villas on 10th Street we are over run by the homeless. People living on public and private properties. People blocking traffic walking down the middle of our roads.
Magnolia Villa was ok’d by city council 39 apt without a car garage. Because of this we are constantly intimidated by homeless in our doorways lying on the side walk and sitting on the sidewalks for days at end.
I called the homeless liaison and they operate 5a‐4p Monday through Thursday. They are waiting for expanded hours to their operations. Saying they are waiting for city council to ok this. You all say you want to assist our cities homeless problems, here is your chance.
Please take a look at expanding hours for this liaison.
Thank you,
Fran Lyness
Item 14
06/14/22
1 of 5 Item 14
06/14/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1963 Attachment: Written Comments (5189 : Written Public Input) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Weston Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 10:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Police Patrol
EXTERNAL
Nothing has changed! Please patrol this block!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Weston Richards <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Subject: Police Patrol
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> The Delaware Avenue Apartments in Santa Monica have become a base for organized criminal activity and drug sales. The police need to patrol this building regularly.
It is believed that gang members and the like actually rent a good percentage of this complex. It is poorly managed and has become a haven for crimes.
Please patrol 2032‐ 2106 Delaware Avenue Apartments.
Item 14
06/14/22
2 of 5 Item 14
06/14/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Written Comments (5189 : Written Public Input) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Vicki Maturo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 1:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Written Public Comment
EXTERNAL
Dear Representative,
I’m writing to inquire whether the City Council would be willing to take up a supported resolution to enact student loan debt cancellation related to graduates and students of both nonprofit and for-profit schools. While the authority to cancel student loan debt legally resides with the President of the United States, cities nationwide have publicly requested that President Biden enact full, universal student loan cancellation through executive order. I’m writing to request that the City of Santa Monica take up such a resolution and endorsement.
How may I proceed with this request through the City Council? Please let me know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vicki Maturo
502 Colorado Ave Apt 501
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 14
06/14/22
3 of 5 Item 14
06/14/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1965 Attachment: Written Comments (5189 : Written Public Input) 1685 Main Street, Room 240, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8310 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Recreation and Parks Commission
April 4, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Memorial Park Plan/Santa Monica College Negotiations Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
At its Thursday, March 17th meeting, the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission discussed and by unanimous vote agreed to request that you direct city staff to restart negotiations with Santa Monica College and its Board of Trustees as to when the College plans to fulfill its promise and obligation to pay “Up to $20 million dollars” from the Measure V Bond of 2016 to help pay for the Memorial Park Redesign.
We also request you or city staff provide us with an update on the progress of the above negotiations within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
In 2016, Measure V also promised $20 million to SMMUSD for the new JAMS Auditorium and did fulfill that promise, but the City of Santa Monica is still waiting for the $20 million dollars SMC promised in the same bond measure for Memorial. At the time, commissioners were assured by city officials, staff and SMC representatives that the full $20 million would go towards Memorial Park.
Negotiations between the City and College stalled in 2019, then the pandemic hit.
Thank you for your leadership and efforts to help push the Memorial Park Plan forward. It’s time.
Sincerely,
Lori Brown
Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission
cc: Recreation and Parks Commission
Andy Agle, Director of Community Services Department
Jeanette Gant, Community Recreation Manager
Item 14
06/14/22
4 of 5 Item 14
06/14/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Written Comments (5189 : Written Public Input) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Cyrus Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; David White
Subject: Item 14 Public Comment - Tuesday, June 14th Council Meeting Attachments: RPC Letter to Council re Memorial Park SMC.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, City Manager,
Three quick things...
1) I've included a link to my recent Letter to the Editor printed in the Santa Monica Daily Press about homelessness and solutions. It is personal and full of good information I think you'll find valuable. https://www.smdp.com/letter‐24/218244
2) I've also attached a recent letter sent to you by the Recreation and Parks Commission asking Council to direct staff to negotiate with SMC about when the College will be meeting its obligation and promise to provide the city with $20 million dollars from its 2016 Bond toward the Memorial Park Expansion. The letter also asks that the city provide an update on those negotiations.
The letter is even more timely given SMC's plans to ask for a new bond.
There are many in the city who think they should fulfill the above obligation before they do. There is also a lot of information some of you may not have about that obligation and the history behind it. Please read the attached letter and I will follow up later.
If any of you would like to hear about Memorial first‐hand, I'd be happy to share it with you. 3) I hope you will give consideration to my application for a third and final term on the Recreation and Parks Commission.
Thank you for your time and consideration, as always.
Sincerely
John Cyrus Smith, Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commissioner [email protected]
[email protected]
Item 14
06/14/22
5 of 5 Item 14
06/14/22
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Written Comments (5189 : Written Public Input)