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-