SR-6-A (13)~
~~
MEMORANDUM
PLANIVING & ZONING DIVISION
PLANNING AND C4MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MOlVICA
DATE: Jantiary I1, 1999
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FR4M: P~anrung Staff
SL~BJECT: Landmark Designation Agplicat~on LC-98LM-OOI
Publfc Hear~ng re~arding the r~ndrtions re~ated to the Landmazk Designat~on
for the suucture located at 2712 Second Street
Introductian
Qn December 14, ~ 99$, the Landmarks Cammission designated the structure at 2712 Second
Street as a G~ty Landrnark The Findings ar-d Determinat~on regarding the designatzon are befare
the Commission on this evemng's Agenda, at~d are attached heretv ~n draft form The
Camm~ss~on placed the follaw-ina cand~t~on on the designatton
"The a~p~icant shall attempt to relocate ti~e structure w~~thin 60 days, and retnrn
to the Commission w~th e~~~dence of such effarts If the Commiss~on
determ~nes that the ow~ner has made reasonable effarts ta relocate the struciure
and it ~s not possible to do so, the Commiss~on shall altow~ city staff to issue a
demolit~on permit "
The purpose of th~s evening's heanng is ta re~•~ew the scape of tl~e appiicant's efforts to comply
4~~ith this condition, and to determine ~y~hether or not the applicant is able to r~locate the building,
or be permitted to demolish the structure
Public I~otification
This ltem vvas noticed as a publ~c hearing b~- mailing a copy of the notice to a!I interested parties,
and b~~ publishing a cap}° of the not~ce in The Areanaut newspaper 10 days in ad~ance of the
hearing
- 1 -
> n, ~;1ci'E
~
Recammendatian
Staff requests that the Co~~ussian hear the public #estimany on this can~ition, and direct staff
regard~ng how ta proceed with implementing the condition of appraval.
Attachments: A. Futdir,~s and Determfnation
B. Public Notice
F IPLAN`SEiARE~i.MK1DESIG5127125econd Cond~t~ons111an99 wpd
- 2 -
`"E1~J
~
ATTACHMENT A: F~NDINGS AND DETERMINATION
.~§~
~ .4 '
~
~
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF TI~ LANDMARKS CUNIMISSION
OF TI~ CITY OF SANTA A~OIVICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DESIGNATION OF LANDMARK LC-98LM-001
FOR THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT
2712 SECOND STREET
LANDMARKS CQMMISSION HEARING
DECEMBER 14, 1998
SECTION L The Landmarks Commiss~on of the Crty of Sauita Monica, having filed an application
on October 19, 1998 to designate the structure located at 2712 Second Street as a Cit~~ Landmark,
having determrned that the appl~cat~on ments forma' cansideration on November 9, 1998, and a
Pu~lic Hearing having been held before the Landmarks Commiss~on of the City af Santa Monica
on December 14, 1998, the Landmarks Cammiss~on hereby makes the following findings.
The structure located at 27I2 Second Stree~ embodies dist~nguishing archrtectural
charactenst~cs valuable to a stud~~ of a penod and sryle, and ~s a unxque example of a
h~storical type in the c~ty of Santa Monica The shotgun house is an Amencan buiiding type
that resuited from a synthesis of sources fram the Caribbean region, Europe, arid Afnca It
is a r-ernacular archztectural form that u~as jnitiall}~ associated with African-American
commun~t~es of the southeast, but ~ts adaptab~lit~~ to a~~arfety of csrcumstances, where
temporan~ or ~nexgens~ve housing was required, rneant ~hat the shatgun house was quickly
d~ffused throughout the nation and used by man~~ commi.u~rties The shotgun house at 2712
Second Street ma~~ have been constn~cted in~t~ally as a beach cortage, or may have provided
hous~ng for v~~orkers assoe~ated v~ith the nearbv ra~l or oil ~ndustr~es The shotgun house has
been reco~n~zed as a.~ zmportant example of Amencan vernacular housing m such standard
texts as Vir~ima arid Lee McAl~sters'A Field Guide ta American Houses (1984} and DeII
tipton's America's Arehitectura! Roots (1986}
? Th~s structure is representative of a simpler time «~hen owners did not necessanly Iive in the
house as a primary residence, but rather used the suuctzue as a vacatson home. Tt~e records
of the pro~eed~ngs reflect ~hotographs ~emonstrating that the ex~sting ceil~ng he~ghts ~nside
the structure do nat meet the mmimum current h~~lding code reguirements Furthermore,
due to the small existing width of the structure (appraximately 11 feet) and the narrowness
of the lot (2~ feet}, the restoratian af the structure would requ~re extensrve structurai
modifications which wauld result in the reb~ild~ng rather than the rehabil~tation of the
architectural chazactenst~cs which qua~'ifi~ this praperty as a laridmark. Therefore, the
appl~cant shal~ fully document the des~gnatian of the property (includzng photographs and
history of the structure) ~n accordance w~th standard c~1y d~sagnatian pract~ces, and st~all
y»~f
~
return to the Commissian vv~thin 60 days to a11ow the Commissron to review the adequacy
of the dacumentat~on
SECTION II In accordance with the provisions of Sect~ons 9.36.1Q0 and 9.36.I20 of the Santa
Momca Murucipal Cade, and based an the findings detailed above, the Lan~arks Commission af
the Cin~ of Santa Monzca herehy determuies that the structure located at 2712 5econd Street Fs
designated a Landmazk m accordance w~th the follow-uig provisions•
1 The applicant shall atternpt to relocate the structure vvith~n 60 days, and return ta thE
C ommiss~on ~ftth e~~ic3ence of such efforts If the Commissian determ~nes that the owner has
made reasonabte effarts to relocate the suucture and it ~s not passib~e ta da so, the
Commission shall allow citv staff to issue a demol~t~on permit.
SECTI0~1 III This decision was filed w~th the D~rectoi of Planning an Jan~ar~~ 5, 1999 m
accordance v~~ith Sect~ons 9 36 120{f~ and 9 36 180(h) of the Santa Mon2ca Muruc2pal Code.
SECTIO:` I~' I herebvi cert~fi~ that the above Findin~s and Determmat~on accuratelv reflect the final
determ~nat~on of t~e Landmarks Commission of the C~t~• of Santa Momca on December 14, 1998.
as determined bs~ the falla~~~ng vote
:~YES Fre~~, Hight, Lunsford, Page
~OE5 ~ione
ABST.4I\ Solton
ABSENT Alofsin, Schm~dt
Respectfully Submitted
Januan~ 11. 1999
Scott Page
Chairperson
attest
Danna JereY
:a '*~n~ Comm~ssion Secretan~
F'•PL~\5~~.~RE L\iF.~I}ES[GS'~199~ 98'•'71?S~CQtip DETER1.i1;wqTID'~ w'pd
- .. [; ~j ~
'~ ~`
ATTACHMF~NT G
~ ~~
-EB-0~-~999 14.1~
~awrence & Hardir~g
~
31~ ~58 1959 F.02i~2
1vA Brtl yo ~TSSEF ~ R~'SO cIR TEs
Str'tecturai L~'-tgireeers
LA Febniaty 1, i999
Mr. ChristQph~r M. Hard+ng
L.srv~rence & Hsrdi~g
1250 Si.xth S~oet, Suite 300
Santa Manica, Ca]ifomia 9040]-1602
R: 2712 Secvnd Street, Santa Motuca
Dear Mr. Har~ing:
Per your request, Nabch Youss~f & Associates ha~e Yeviewed the properry at 27 j 2
Secvnd Strect, Santa Monica, CaLfamia_ Per au sit.~ visit of the structure, we have
reached the followiag conclusiol~s:
* Ihe srructurat system of this type V bwildi~g was constructed befoze the enactmem of
seismic design codes and docs not possess a campfete seisrnic resista~t system or Iaad
. path. T~is sy~m is not Seismically a~~uate and thete is e potentia~ for callapse in
the cvetrt of ~ m~jor earthquake.
~ In ordcr to se~smically upgrade the structure major intru,sion will be re~uired ar~d
remo~-~1 of interior and exterior surfaces to install strengch~ening measures. Also, a
~arge partion of the nzatrt framie~g w~~t have ta be removed a~d replaced to in~tall
appropriate seismic anchors and holddowns reyuired far life saf'ety.
• Since the buitding does not have adequ~te t~es/wnnections for stability, it vv~11 not
maintain it's structuraE iategrity to be remowed fmm the site a~d relocated.
Due to the above ~easoas, it ~s our pcofessional apinior~ ~ti seisraic s~engthening of the
bwldir~g is not physi~ally or ecQnomically feasible.
If you have any questians. please do not h~sitate to call us at ~13,362.4707.
Sincerely,
IYABIH'YOUSS~F & A,SSOCIATES
Na ' Youssef,
Principa~l
-` :.t~'
4nn ~v~4~-.;.~ Zinnlp~a-ri [~~,rP 5~A ~ tos AnQexes. Cali~orni~ 9Q017 •~13/362-07~7 • FAX: Z13/688-3Q]8
ATTACHMENT H
-+}~~
LAWRENCE & HAkDING
A PRpF~5510NAL CORPORATIDN
CHRI$TO?NER M }iAppING
RICHARO A ~AWR£l~1CE
KEPEMETF{ L iiUTCHER
KEVIN ~/ lCCZAL
A J J.~.RASUNAS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Febnaary 10, 1999
~250 SIxTN STAEET
Si1[TE 900
SAFlTA MON1Gq, CALIF'ORN1A 9040~-~60z
TELEaHONE 131Q1 393-F007
FACS~MILE 1310f 4g8-~969
WRITER~S 61RECT pfAL
(31q) 451-2968
Via Messenaer Deliverrr
Santa Manica Ci#y Coufleil
City of Santa Monica
"~ ~8~ ~`ir~~i~i-~f~~~, ~`~ ~[
Santa Monicat CA 90401-3295
Re: 2712 Second Street, Santa Mo~~ea
Our Client: Faresf King
Hea~'ing Date: February 16, '1999
O~r File No. 1444.2
Dear Councilmembers:
Our law frm represents Mr. Forest King, the archEtec# and owner's represer~tative
with respect to tt~e above-refere~ced property.
Baclcarot~nd
On December 14, 1998, the Landmar~cs Commission desEgnated #he existing
structure at th~s site as a local fandmark pursuant to the Cfty of Santa Monica's
Landmarks & Historic Disfrict 4rd~nance (Santa Monica Municipal Code Seetion
9.36.010 e# sea.). At the same time, the Commission a~thorized t~e owner to demalisf~
the existing structure after 60 days m the e~ent it proved infeas~ble to refacate the
struct~re to anot~er sife. The Commission authonzed such demolition because the
structure has no ~ractical use and is in extremely poor physical opr~di#ion. -
in eariy ,lanuary 1999, two apPeals were filed cY~allenging the Landmarks
Commi~sion's deG~sion -- one appeat ~y ~he Ocean Par[c Commun~ty Organization
("OPCO") and a second appeal by #he Church in ~cean Park Tt~ese appeafs are
sched~fed for hearing on T~esday, Februar~r 16th. This letter constitutes the owrier's
prelirninary response ta these two appeals.
Discussion
We are informed the two pending appeals are motivated by a desire to "buy time"
t~ order tv coritsn~e explosi~g the feasibilcty af relocat~rig the 4~utilding. At rio t~me has
OPCO or the Church in Ocean Par~C advised us of any substanti~e reasons for their
appeals, nor ha~e we ever bee~ pro~rded with any evidence supporting these appeals
As a~chtitect for the pro~ect, Mr. King 4~as irtspected the existmg struct~re anci
does nat bel~eve it ~s physically capable of being relocated gi~en its age, IacK of
str~ctural integrity an~ generally poar condition. Mr. King has confirmed this by
obta~ning a seoond opinion fram Nab~F~ Youssef of Nabih Youssef & Assaciates, a
w :'- ~ rl
LAWI~ENGE & ~ARDING
F ~ROFESSiON/L CORPOR/.TI6N
ATTORIV6Y5 AT LqW
Santa Monica Ci#y Council
February 10, 1999
Page 2
stnictural engineering frm wit~ extensive experience working with historically significant
stn~ctures (including #he Las Angeles Coliseum and 5aint Monica's CF~urch). Mr.
Youssef persanally mspected the bui~~mg. Enclased is a letter from Mr. Youssef, which
ind~cates #hat the buiiding ~wifl no~ mair~tain its s#ruct~rral integrity to be removed from
the site and reloca~ed°, and "it is ous pro#essional op~nEOn ~hat seismic strengthening of
the building is not physically or economically feasible."
Based upon the Youssef report, we F~ave demonstrated tha~ denyir~g ti~e owner of
this praperty the right to demolish the extisting bu~lding wou4d effecti~~ly ~feny tY~e owner
all econom~cally v~able use of his pro~~rty. Such a denial, if it contir~ues any further,
threatens a cvnstitutionai tafcing of this property, either temporarily or permanent[y
(depending, in part, on whether he is able ta cont~r~ue paying the "carrying costs" on t~~s
praperty, given the delays and iack of income}. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coasfaf
Council, 505 U.S. ~ 003 (1992} (Deri~al af atf ecanomically viabie use of property
cons~itutes a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Ur~ited States
Constitu#ion}; and First Enal~sh Evanaelical Lutheran Church of Gfendale v. ~,q$ Ang~l~s
Caunt~. ~}82 U.S. 304 (1987) (The Fifth Ame~dmen# authori~es ~n award of damages
for a ternporary taking of property).
Conclusion
Given Mr Yo~ssefs report, delaying demolition af this bu~lding any furth~r wEfl
serve no public ~urpase and threatens to cause serious harm #o the owner of this
property. Construction of a new s~ngle-family home at this site has already been
delayed by approximately fve months due to the unnecessarily cumbersome nature nf
the City's landmarks proce5s. Without pre~udice ta tf~e ow~er's legal positian abo~# past
delay, any furt~er defay creates a serious r~sk of a canstitutiona3 #aking of this praperty.
_~_ _~ Leuat[v; we ~a r~t ~aelieve #h~ Gi±~~ ra~.:~,c:I !~:as a~,y u~s~~et~~~ c~~~er #he state a~
the record. Mr. Yousse~s r~port confirms it is infeasible efther to relocate this builcfmg
to a new site or rehabil~ta~e it at its present s~te. Giver~ these circurnstar~ces, your only
fawful course is to uphald #he i.ar~dmarks CommESSion's decision and alfow demolifion
ta proceed expeditiousEy.
5incerely,
~-~ •~. ~. ~S
1~rista her M. Hardin~'
C p g
af t..AWRENCE & HARDiNG
a Professional Corporatian
CMH/jps
Enclosure
", _ E + 5 )
LAWRENGE Sc ~IARDII~G ~~f ~ " :.:~- - =-~_ `. ~°' °- ` ~
A PROFESS]ONAL ~~~~ ~; ' ~:~' ~Irj - -
CORPORATION ~r
ATTORNEY$ AT LAW
Santa Monica City Council ~~~ t~ ~~~~8
Fsbruary 10, 7 999
Page 3
cc Mar~a M. Stewart
Suzanne Frick
~onna Jerex
Marsha Moutrie
Barry Rosenbaum
Lan~marks ~ommission
Forest King
Craig Cowan
1444/9MLTRCC61 Q
° ~' ~ -~
NA B~'H` YQ USS'L~'F & A SS O CIA T~S
StructuraI Engineers
LA Febru~ry 1, 1999
Mr. Ctu'istopher M. Harding
Lawrence & ~arding
125~ Sixth Street, Su[te 30D
Santa Monica, California 944~1-1602
R• 2712 Second Street, Sarata Ulanica
Dear Mr. Harding:
Per your request, I~abih Xouss~f & Associates have re~iewed the property at 2712
Secomd Street, Santa Monica, Ca~ifornia. Per our site visit o~'#he structuze, we h~ve
reached the following canclusions:
~ The structural system Qf this type V bwlding was cor~structed be~oze the enactinent of
seismic design codes and does nat possess a camp~ete seismic r~sistant system or Ioad
, path. This system is nat seismi~ally adequate and there is a potential far collapse in
thc event of a ma~or earthquake
• Ia orc~er to se~szn~cnlly upgrad~ the st~n.icture mafor intr~sion ~vi~t be required and
remo~al of xnterior and exterior surfaces ~a instal~ strengthening measures_ Also, a
lazge portion of thE ma~n framing will ha~,~e to be removed and r~piaced Ya install
appropnate seismic anchors and hoiddowns requur~d for ltfe safety
~ Since the build'ua~ does not ha~e adequate t~es/cozvnections for stability, ~t v-nli not
maintain it's structural integr~ty ta be remo~red from the srte and relacated
Due to the above xeasons, it is ouc professional vpinion that seismic strengthening of the
t~uildirng ~s not physically or economically feasible
If yo~ have any questzons, glease do not hesitate to cal~ us ~t ~~ 3.362 0707.
S~nCer~ly,
NABIH YOUSSEF & ASSOCIATE5
~ . ~
~
~Ta~rrY Youssef, S~
Frincapat
800 ~'ilshire Boulevard, Suice 510 - Los A~tget~s, CalEfornia 90017 • z13/362-4707 ~ FAX 213/688-3018
~- ~~:3 7