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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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:
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.