Loading...
SR-406-003 PCD:SF:JT:AS:DJ:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\2712Second Council Mtg. September 26, 2000 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report 99EIR- 001, Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and deny appeals and authorize the Demolition of the Landmark Structure Located at 2712 Second Street. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 99EIR-001 and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the demolition of the landmark structure located at 2712 Second Street. The owner of the subject property filed an application to demolish the existing abandoned single-story, single-family residence located on the project site. Subsequently, the existing structure, characterized as a Victorian vernacular pre-1900 shotgun house, was designated a Santa Monica City landmark. However, the Landmarks Commission authorized demolition subject to conditions. That action was appealed to the City Council. The demolition of this landmark structure is a discretionary action and, as such, is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND The subject property is located in the OP-2 (Ocean Park Low Multiple Family) District immediately adjacent to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. The project site is -1- a 25-foot wide by approximately 96-foot deep lot on the west side of Second Street between Hill Street and Ashland Avenue. The site is developed with a Victorian vernacular pre-1900 “shotgun”-style house approximately 600 square feet in size. The narrow, single story board and batten cottage has a gabled roof and displays the defining characteristics of a “shotgun” house. It is one room wide and three rooms deep, without a connecting hallway, and with the door in the front gable end. The structure was identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. A detailed description of the structure is contained in Appendix B of the FEIR. The property owner filed a demolition permit application for the structure in September, 1998. Based upon the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Information and a preliminary evaluation of the site’s historic merit, the Landmarks Commission filed a landmark designation application. Subsequently, in December 1998, the Commission designated the structure a City landmark. The Landmarks Commission conditioned the designation to allow demolition of the structure provided that, within 60 days from the hearing date, the applicant submit photographs and floor plans to document the structure and provide sufficient evidence that the owner attempted to relocate the structure, but was unable to do so. On January 11, 1999, two separate appeals were filed, one by the Ocean Park Community Organization; the other by the Church in Ocean Park (United Methodist). These appeals -2- focused on the Landmarks Commission’s decision to allow demolition of the structure. The City Council heard the appeals on February 16, 1999, and upheld the landmark designation. At that time, the Council directed staff to analyze the project in accordance with CEQA to determine whether the demolition would create a significant adverse impact on a City historic resource. CEQA ANALYSIS An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to assess the impact of the proposed building demolition. Copies of the draft EIR were distributed to the Landmarks Commission and City Council, and notices of availability were published and mailed at the beginning of the 45 day public review period, which closed on July 19, 2000. A total of 7 comment letters were received prior to the close of the comment period. These comment letters, as well as the responses to comments, are included in the final EIR (Attachment D). The EIR focused on the impact of demolition of the building based on its landmark status. As discussed in more detail below, the EIR determined that the proposed demolition of the structure would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Thresholds of Significance As a designated City Landmark, the 2712 Second Street structure meets the definition of an historic resource under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) states that “a -3- project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) define “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of that resource would be materially impaired.” Project Impacts The 2712 Second Street structure is situated on a tract once owned by Abbot Kinney, one of the area’s most prominent and colorful early citizens. It survives as one of the last intact examples of the beach cottages that dominated the Ocean Park/Santa Monica landscape during its growth as a resort community during the 1890s. Not only is the building a designated City Landmark, it is also potentially eligible for individual listing in the National Register and, therefore, also eligible for inclusion in the California Register. This structure embodies the setting and character of a distinctive historical neighborhood. It represents both the social and economic growth of the Ocean Park neighborhood in Santa Monica as a seaside resort community. The building is also adjacent to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, the City’s only designated historic district, and is recommended for inclusion in this District by the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The EIR determined that the proposed demolition of this historic structure would result in the loss of a significant historical cultural resource of a type now extremely rare in the region -4- and City. Alternatives Analysis The EIR considers three alternatives in lieu of demolition. These alternatives are summarized below. 1. No project Under this alternative, the one-story historic structure would remain in its existing state without being demolished or relocated. Although this would avoid immediate significant impacts to the historic structure, the property would be maintained in its existing condition as an unusable structure without improvement or rehabilitation. 2. On-site rehabilitation This alternative would involve substantial rehabilitation of the existing structure in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, including the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. The EIR concludes that the structure maintains a good degree of original architectural integrity, and sufficient photographic documentation is available to replicate the missing historic elements. Although much of the significant historic material has been lost, it is possible for the building to be extensively rehabilitated and made habitable in a manner that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. A detailed report and estimate of the -5- rehabilitation, including construction costs, is provided in Appendix C of the FEIR. Construction aspects of the rehabilitation project include removal of the porch rail, air- conditioning units, non-historic doors, floor finished, furred walls and wall finishes, non- historic windows and glass block, removal of the existing foundation, repair and replacement of roofing materials, and shoring of the structure prior to the construction of a new foundation. A new concrete foundation would be poured, including piers, cripple walls, and floor joists. The exterior board and batten siding would be patched and repaired, and new siding to cover the new stem wall footing would need to be constructed. The porch and missing scrollwork would be reconstructed using historic photographs. In the interior of the structure, non-historic wall furring may be removed, however new stud walls with plywood shear panels would need to be installed at each exterior and interior wall. Electrical and plumbing components, with the exception of plumbing fixtures, should be replaced in their entirety because of their condition and questionable compliance with current building codes. The State Historic Building Code requires that ceiling heights are appropriate for their use, with the only mandate being a 7-foot minimum ceiling height in dwelling rooms. This requirement can be achieved through rehabilitation. In addition, although the loss of original wood shingles for installation of the roof sheathing will be required, it can be performed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. -6- The cost of the rehabilitation is estimated to be approximately $94,000. This estimated cost is higher than the typical costs for a new structure of this size. An economic feasibility study for the on-site rehabilitation of this structure was conducted in accordance with standard City practices. This economic analysis focused exclusively on use of the property as rental property since the owner had purchased the property for investment purposes and not for use as his personal residence. Existing City records reflect that the approximate land value for this property is $300,000, based on the 1996 sales price for the property. Additionally, the sales price for the site was listed at $299,000 as recently as last month. Therefore, the cost of purchasing and rehabilitating the structure was established at $394,000 ($300,000 land cost + $94,000 for rehabilitation). Given these costs, the amount of rent that would need to be collected would be approximately $2900 per month. This figure is based on a 10% down payment with an 8% annual percentage rate on the mortgage, and $300 per month in property taxes. Current rental market data indicates that a 600 square foot cottage in the Ocean Park area could potentially be rented for $1000 - $1300 per month, depending on the condition of the property and the structure. A maximum rent of $1700 may be possible if the property is fully landscaped and offers living amenities. Clearly, $2900 per month for a one-bedroom, 600 square foot house exceeds this maximum rent and would, therefore, be economically infeasible. The monthly rental for this property may be even less since this property was removed from rent control pursuant to the Ellis Act and these controls may be -7- reestablished upon rerental. 3. Relocation, Rehabilitation, and Reuse This alternative involves the relocation of the historic structure to a compatible and suitable location and setting. The City of Santa Monica owns each of the alternative locations analyzed in the FEIR. Subsequent to the relocation, the structure would be rehabilitated. The following three Ocean Park neighborhood sites were analyzed in this context. 1) A portion of the existing city-owned parking lot at the corner of Ocean Park Boulevard and Neilson Way, adjacent to the landmark First Roy Jones House (1894), now known as the Santa Monica Heritage Museum. This location would result in the displacement of the structure from its historic setting, residential context, and low scale neighborhood and remove the building from its proximity to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. This District is the City’s only designated historic district, and the structure at 2712 Second Street lies just a few parcels from the District’s boundaries. The City’s 1993 historic resources survey recommended that the building be added to the District if the boundaries were to be reconsidered and expanded, as the building is consistent with the District’s history and context, and also falls within the same period of significance (1875-1930). Relocation to the Santa Monica Heritage Museum site would also result in the loss of parking spaces in an area of the City where parking is at a premium. The cost for moving the structure to another location is estimated at approximately $14,000. Rehabilitation -8- would cost an additional $94,000 (not including site preparation), for a total of $108,000. Depending how the structure was sited, a minimum of 3 parking spaces would be removed from the existing parking lot. A new community use for the building would require at least 2 parking spaces, thereby resulting in a shortage of at least 5 parking spaces. Relocation to this site would also require approval from the California Coastal Commission, which has more stringent parking requirements than the City for areas located in coastal zones. In addition, there are no existing or proposed City-sponsored programs that could be accommodated within the building, and no budget for staffing a program or maintaining the building. 2) An existing pocket park at the corner of Sixth Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. This location is within a residential tract established during the same era as the original building site (turn-of-the-century). The narrow width this pocket park (approximately 20 wide by 138 feet long), would not be adequate to accommodate the structure, which is approximately 12-1/2 feet wide at its narrowest and 18 feet wide at its widest. The sideyard setback requirements for this parcel are a minimum of four feet on each side, which would leave only twelve feet of developable area for the parcel width. This lot is also located within a dense residential district, and no space is available on the site for parking. Similar to Alternative No. 1, relocation to this setting would increase parking demands in an area where parking is at a premium. Although a variance for parking and setbacks could potentially be granted for this historic structure, other -9- considerations such as the loss of public recreation area in a densely populated (and parked) area of the City outweigh the overall benefits of this alternative. Similar to the previous alternative, the site would also not provide the appropriate context and neighborhood setting that contributes to the building’s significance since it is not immediately adjacent to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic DistrictThere is also no . reasonable City use, nor existing funding for staffing and maintaining the site. 3) A portion of the existing dog park on the corner of Main Street and Pacific Avenue, which is adjacent to a turn-of-the-century bungalow. This site has been identified as a permanent dog park in the City’s Open Space Element and Park and Recreation Master Plan, and therefore could not be converted to another use without amending these long range plans. The site would also not provide the neighborhood and setting that contributes to the building’s significance since it is located in the middle of a commercial district and is not immediately adjacent to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District . Again, like the other alternatives, there is no reasonable City use for the structure and no budget for staffing a program or maintaining the building. This alternative would also result in the loss of open space in the area, and there would not be sufficient area for on- site parking. As documented in the Final EIR, several local papers discussed this project and publicized -10- the fact that the owner was willing to donate the structure to anyone interested in relocating it to another site. Staff is not aware of any offers made for such relocation. Neighborhood community groups including OPCO (the Ocean Park Community Organization), as well as the Church in Ocean Park, have also both conducted outreach on the project in an attempt to find a suitable site for relocation. This has also been unsuccessful. Mitigation Measures In the event the structure is demolished, the EIR recommends two mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the building demolition. The first mitigation measure involves a comprehensive documentation of the structure, including photographs and scaled plans, prior to demolition. The documentation should involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and be consistent with federal Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(2) states that documentation of an historic resource by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings can fully mitigate the impact of demolition in some circumstances. Such documentation would only adequately reduce impacts to less than significant levels when the resource is either not a strong contributor to a historic district, is beyond rehabilitation efforts, or when significant architectural characteristics have been damaged or removed. As a National Register -11- eligible building that has also been identified as a potential contributor to the City’s only historic district, such documentation would not mitigate this building’s demolition to below a level of significance. Further, although the rehabilitation of the 2712 Second Street structure would be extensive, rehabilitation could occur in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Although this mitigation measure would not fully mitigate the project’s impact, if the City Council authorizes demolition of the structure, this mitigation should be imposed. The second mitigation measure involves relocating the structure to another site within the Ocean Park District. The California Register of Historical Resources regulations encourage that relocated structures be moved to a location compatible with the original character and use of the resource. In such situations, the structure should remain in its historic context. Specifically, the resource should retain its historic features, site orientation, setting and general environment. Characteristics of this building’s “historic context” include its proximity to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, its siting on a small, narrow lot, and its location on a residential parcel in the Ocean Park neighborhood where the majority of the City’s older structures are located. As detailed above, a suitable relocation site within the Ocean Park neighborhood meeting these characteristics could not be located. As discussed under the Alternatives Analysis section of this report, the only potential existing lots for relocation are very small in size and would not be capable of meeting City and California Coastal Commission parking -12- demands in an area where parking is already in high demand. In addition, no feasible City use or funding for the structure has been identified. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not feasible. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the City to balance the economic, legal, social, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” Staff believes that the demolition of the structure at 2712 Second Street would allow the construction of new housing in the community. This community benefit outweighs the loss of the historic structure. Even if demolition of the landmark structure was not authorized, this would not result in rehabilitation and reuse of the landmark structure. Instead, as demonstrated by the No Project Alternative, the structure would remain in its current unlivable condition. Conclusion The on-site rehabilitation alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would result in the preservation of the existing historic structure on its current site. Provided that the rehabilitation is done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for -13- the Treatment of Historic Properties, impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. The other environmentally acceptable alternative would be the relocation, rehabilitation, and reuse of the structure. However, staff believes that this alternative can only be accomplished if the structure retains its historic context by staying on a residential lot in close proximity to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District in Ocean Park. Neither of those alternatives are feasible. As previously stated, land costs plus rehabilitation costs would total approximately $394,000. The monthly rent needed to cover the mortgage and property taxes would be approximately $2900, which exceeds the maximum estimated rental for the site by approximately $1200. Although this alternative would eliminate demolition of the structure and the loss of a cultural resource, given the cost of the property and rehabilitation, rental of this property is not economically feasible. Moreover, there are no sites currently available for relocation of the structure in close proximity, to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District in Ocean Park. Consequently, this alternative is also not feasible. Due to these constraints and for the reasons described previously, staff recommends that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted to allow demolition of the structure. -14- BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and to all persons who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The notice was also published in the “Our Times” section of the Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution contained in Attachment B certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed demolition of the structure located at 2712 Second Street, adopt the resolution contained in Attachment C approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project, and deny the two appeals thereby authorizing demolition of the landmark structure. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner Donna Jerex, Associate Planner -15- Planning and Community Development Department Attachments: A: Notice of Public Hearing B: Resolution – Certification of Final EIR C: Resolution – Statement of Overriding Considerations D: Final Draft Environmental Impact Report F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2712Second.doc -16-