Landmarks Commission
Report
Landmarks Commission Meeting: June 10, 2024 Agenda Item: 9B To: Landmarks Commission
From:
Subject Recommendations from Social Justice/Equity in Preservation Subcommittee
Recommended
Actions
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Commission review and comment on recommendations from the Social Justice/Equity in Preservation Subcommittee
Background
On November 08, 2021, the Landmarks Commission designated 1665 Appian Way. In the course of the designation process, information about the property owner and his racist practices were discussed and excluded from the Landmarks Commission’s findings approving of the Landmark designation. The designation was appealed to City Council, and the information about the property owner was a prominent feature of the discussion with concerns raised by the Black community and the City Council. On June 14, 2022, the City Council voted to deny the designation and in light of the issues raised by the application, provided the following direction:
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to direct the Landmarks Commission to work with the Committee for Racial Justice and other groups within town, to try and come up with some criteria and framework for addressing these kinds of issues when they arise in the future, so that we will have a standardized way of dealing with these unfortunate situations. Also implied direction that would include having the Landmarks Commission appoint one or two liaisons to the Committee for Racial Justice and other groups in the city as well. The vote was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
The Landmarks Commission proceeded to create the Social Justice/Equity in Preservation Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”). The Subcommittee formed a partnership with the Committee on Racial Justice. The work of that effort is described in the report prepared by the Working Group on Social Justice/Equity in Preservation (Attachment A) and provides the seven following recommendations:
1. Update the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory and Context Statement so they more deeply reflect the history of Santa Monica’s underrepresented communities and identify extant historic places that may help tell their stories.
2. Ensure that landmark nominations, and/or the reports that analyze them take a much closer look into owners and occupants of proposed landmarks to learn more about the people associated with our historic places because it is in the people that the stories reside.
3. Create Santa Monica guidelines for interpretation of the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria and evaluation of historic integrity to assist applicants, decision makers, and others active in the process, and include special guidance on how to uncover and interpret the history of previously underrecognized groups.
4. Seek and retain outside consultants from diverse populations or those with training and/or background in awareness of history and population movements of unrepresented groups in Santa Monica.
5. Establish a committee of diverse community members to be advisory to the Landmarks Commission on matters related to social justice and underrepresented narratives in local history. Structured similarly to the Third Street Historic District’s CPC, as an ad hoc group, or other similar construct to be determined, the Advisory Committee would be called into action to meet and discuss relevant nominations, such as those that include the narrative types in section 2 of this report. The Advisory Committee, which would not need to come to a consensus, would submit a report to the Landmarks Commission prior to the public hearing on nominations, listing the range of views expressed about the proposed landmark. The Landmarks Commission will take this information under advisement when making a determination. Members of the Advisory Committee would receive a small stipend for each meeting.
6. Host a meeting/celebration with city-wide participation to initiate the programs recommended in this report and to increase awareness of the city’s historic preservation program among the diverse populations of the city. Generating interest in the program, the event will strive to inspire active participation of new individuals and groups in the landmark nomination and designation process.
7. Provide professional training to Landmarks Commissioners and city staff that encourages personal growth through awareness of privilege and leads to an ability to recognize ideas and systems that are based on a non-inclusive world view.
Discussion
Staff has supported the work of the Subcommittee and the Working Group throughout the effort. The Working Group has made valuable recommendations for Council consideration.
This memo provides additional information to help inform the Landmarks Commission’s discussion and recommendation to the City Council on:
1) The report’s recommendations; and
2) An implementation schedule of the report’s recommendations.
Some of the recommendations can be implemented immediately with existing resources.
Other recommendations are substantive process changes that will require revision to the Landmarks Ordinance or are work products that will require allocation of budget and prioritization in the City’s work plan. The goal is to ensure that the report’s recommendations are fully implemented over the next few years.
Recommendations that Can be Accomplished with Existing Resources Recommendation 4, to retain outside consultants from diverse populations and/or consultants who have background and/or training in awareness of history and population movements of unrepresented groups in Santa Monica. The City retains preservation consultants that have experience in histories of unrepresented groups such as preparing social and cultural historical context projects for other municipalities. All assessment reports now include a section on exclusionary covenants, or “redlining” to identify the history of a property in relationship to this history of systemic racism. Nonetheless, staff will further explore with the Working Group how best to ensure that the history and movements of unrepresented groups is included in future assessment reports. In addition, in future Request for Qualifications for preservation consultants who are on-call with the City, consultants will be asked to demonstrate experience in awareness of history and population movements of unrepresented group Santa Monica.
Recommendation 6, a community-wide meeting hosted by the Landmarks Commission has previously been discussed by the Commission. It may be helpful to present the recommendations to City Council prior to such a community meeting to ensure that there is alignment with Council policy direction.
Recommendation 7, to provide training to Landmarks Commissioners and staff would be a positive step that could likely be accomplished with existing resources and relatively limited cost. Staff will consult with the Working Group to find facilitators that will be instrumental in this training.
Recommendations That Will Require Additional Resources
Recommendation 1, to update the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and Context Statement is a substantive work product. The last Historic Resources Inventory and Context Statement took three years to complete and required substantive resources in terms of budget and staff time. The 2018 Context Statement is attached to this memo for reference (Attachment B). As a point of reference, the 2018 Context Statement includes a section on Social and Cultural History that could be further expanded upon. While this section is not complete, it provides valuable information. This information was useful for the Historic Resource Assessment provided for the Philomathean Society Club, for example. A supplementary context statement would need to be included in future budget and work plan priorities. Research and oral histories that the Working Group has completed will be part of a future HRI and Context Statement update.
Recommendation 2, to have reports that analyze landmark nominations to take a closer look into owners and occupants of proposed landmarks to learn more about the people associated with the potential historic resource. Current designation assessment reports prepared by the City’s consultants include a review of occupants and owners of each property and report outstanding information on any and all residents and owners. It would be helpful to have more clarity from the Working Group to understand what is meant by taking a “closer look”. For example, are there particular sources or additional steps that future assessment reports should include so that staff can further understand the additional cost that may be implicated in additional research.
Recommendation 5, to establish a committee of community members, who would receive a stipend, to assist in the review of resource nominations when issues of social justice/equity arise would be an important improvement to pursue. This recommendation is modelled after the Third Street Historic District CPC and would require amendments to the Landmarks Ordinance. As context, convening the Third Street Historic District CPC has been an implementation challenge because activity can be sporadic and often committee members are no longer available when projects arise. Similarly, in the 2 ½ years since the designation of 1665 Appian Way, there has not been a nomination where such issues have been raised. Therefore, flexibility in developing such a process is necessary and additional work is needed to ensure the successful participation of the committee in the review process. In addition, staff would need to review whether offering the committee a stipend is consistent with City policy.
Recommendation 3 has three key components related to the preparation of guidelines by the City including application of Landmarks criteria, evaluation of historic integrity, and special guidance on how to uncover and interpret the history of previously underrecognized groups. There is special interest in developing guidance in uncovering and interpreting the history of previously underrecognized as part of this recommendation.
Developing guidelines will require budget allocation and devotion of staff resources.
Summary
The Working Group has engaged in an important effort and made valuable recommendations in response to City Council direction. This information is provided to assist the Landmarks Commission in their discussion of these important recommendations and to provide understanding of the timing by which these recommendations could move forward due to budget and work plan considerations.
Attachments
A. A Place For Everyone in Santa Monica’s History: Report from Working Group on Social Justice/Equity in Preservation
B. 2018 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement