R-9576
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\2712Second\2712. Reso.SOC.doc
City Council Meeting 09-26-00 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO.-9576 (ees)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING THE CEQA FINDINGS NECESSARY TO
APPROVE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE AT 2712 SECOND STREET AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which analyzes
the environmental effects of the demolition of the landmark structure located at 2712
Second Street; and
WHEREAS, on September 26,2000, the City Council as Lead Agency, reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified that the Environmental Impact Report for the
demolition of the landmark structure located at 2712 Second Street was prepared in full
compliance with State law and City CEQA Guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Final EIR determined that without mitigation, the project would
result in significant effects on historic resources, namely, demolition of the 2712 Second
1
"'i ~ ') ,- 23
Street landmark structure. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the State of California
CEQA Guidelines and as detailed in Final EIR Section 3, the City Council finds that the
following mitigation measures have been required in the project that will reduce the
project's impact on the historic structure, but not below a level of significance.
Nevertheless, these impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations
as discussed in Section 3.
a) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, comprehensive documentation of the
structure consistent with Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards shall
be prepared. This documentation shall be prepared in consultation with the State
Office of Historic Preservation and the National Parks Service.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b )(2) states that documentation of an historic
resource through photographs, architectural drawings, and written historical
narratives can 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 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
2
AI'" ; 24
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.
b) The Final EIR determined that relocation and rehabilitation at another site in
the Ocean Park residential area near the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District
would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. However for the
reasons detailed below, this mitigation measure is not feasible. No City-owned
residential site is currently available within the Ocean Park neighborhood which
meets the residential, low scale neighborhood context and period of significance
(1875-1930) affiliated with the structure as well as the adjacent Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District. Among the constraints of the sites considered, is the
lack of adequate parking to meet both City and California Coastal Commission
requirements. There are also no existing or proposed City-sponsored programs that
could be accommodated within the building and no budget for staffing a program
or rehabilitating and maintaining the historic structure. Additionally, no other
relocation sites were identified even though the structure was locally advertised as
available for relocation.
SECTION 2. The CEQA mandated environmentally superior alternative was found
to be the On-Site Rehabilitation Alternative. As analyzed in the Final EIR Section 6, this
alternative would result in the preservation of the existing historic structure on its existing
3
"'.. 25
historic site, thereby reducing impacts to both the historic structure and the historic context
of the neighborhood. However, by requiring rehabilitation of the existing historic structure
at its current location, the objective of the project (demolition of the structure to allow future
redevelopment of the site) would not be accomplished. Further, after rehabilitation, the
total cost of the project would be approximating $394,000. The monthly rent required to
cover the mortgage and property taxes would be approximately $2900. The estimated
monthly maximum rent is estimated to be $1700 once the structure is rehabilitated.
Therefore. the costs of purchasing and rehabilitating the property would exceed the
maximum estimated rental for the structure by approximately $1200 per month. Given this
cost scenario, on-site rehabilitation of the structure is not feasible. The
relocation/rehabilitation/reuse alternative is also infeasible due to the lack of available sites
within the Ocean Park area that are consistent with the structure's historic context. The
No Project alternative would not achieve the project's objectives and would leave the
structure in its current unlivable condition.
SECTION 3. As described in Section 2, the Final EIR found that the project would
result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts on historic resources. Consistent with
Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes
a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that the benefits of the project
outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts based on the following reasons:
Demolition of the structure at 2712 Second Street would allow the construction of new
4
'" ... '.I ~ 2 6
housing in the community. The development of new housing, when undertaken consistent
with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods, is a primary objective of the City's
Land Use and Housing Elements. 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 of the landmark structure. Instead, as demonstrated by
the No Project Alternative, the structure would remain in its current unlivable condition.
SECTION 4. Consistent with Public Resources Section 21081.6, the City Council
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which is included in Attachment A, to mitigate
significant effects of the project on the environment and to ensure compliance during
project implementation.
SECTION 5. Consistent with Section 21 081.6(d) of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this
project are located in the Planning and Community Development Department, 1685 Main
Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California. The custodian of these plans is Donna Jerex,
Associate Planner in the City Planning Division of the Planning and Community
Development Department.
5
~ W \J.... 2 7
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
! ,
I'
,1_,1,
< ) } /
. /:- ..:,' ./..-.
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
6
... ,. \J ~:2 R
IJ;.l
~~
~;Z
UCj
~o
f-<f-<~
IJ;.lCl)~
~~Cj
~~z
f-<<....
CI)~~
000
zzt::
o<z
U....10
1J;.l~~
~Oz
;:::zo
t"l0....
....f-<
f-<<
~Cj
ot:
~~
~~
o
'" ;:::
u 0
;::: .~
.. ...
.~ ..
- '"
~.~
s::=
o ~
u>
.q
I::
>LI
'"
;:e
;:
o
~
'"
p::
OIl
;:::
bl) .5
;::: .~
.~ l-<
..........
E ;>-.
.~ '"
;::: ;:::
o "
::;~
"
...
~
3
bl)
.5 ~
... ::l
o '"
..... 0'"
'a
o
::;
-0
OJ
...
'5
cr'
~
;:::
o
';j
u
<1::
OJ
...
::l
~
C)
::;
;:::
.S
...
..
.~
~
]>..=1S
(1'2 E ~
~::J 0..;::' ~
'2 E -il C.::i
c E :> ;>-. c::
<:i 0 Q.l 0
'iSUQU~
...
v
c
p,
o
::.'
...
OJ
g-
C::
c::
v .2
...c -0
8 8 t:
^-.~ 3 b ~
o [J).......c e":I
c: l:'Ii 0...4-.
~~5~~
~o.~~~i
~ ~-8'~"~~
-0
t:: >-. Q.l
:e E.~
c'';:; v
f=; E.tO
;:) 1...0 ..... .....
od:2g
.~.9 E
~~-o
v ..... IV
....c t:: >
v (;) 0
~ s ~ .
f=; " a.Q
8 ~ ~ ~
..... v v
:;; ~-i3 :> -5 u u ..><:
0 "0 $ ...
.~ 0: -5 .~ " ... ";i '': "
i:..a :> g 0 "-'
,3 v 0:
<: 1:: .~ S " 0: .- c c -;;
" 'id B < ~~~ .g i c c
..c t:: t:: .~ 3
1:: u u ~$~ ~ v
v " ~ '': ~ i: " "
a. E t; ~ .~ j2 o:Q ~ v; z u
8 " ~ ;:;; u ~ 'E
0 u " .;:; :.a c v v "d
U 0 -5 c - p, C ..c ... to "
"'" u ..:.. ell u ~ "-' " fJ)
"
.::
C
"
..;:::
"
...
c..
e 1!
o ::l
U...
u
::l
- ...
~ 't;
a'O
~ S
~ ''':::
;::: ..
.g 5
.~ g
.~ u
~.g
u
-5
-0- V
Q.l .- ~
~ :J:-9
1~ &. ~
c: ~ E "
..ij ~:~ 5
<.nr:l-C:::"U
u~l:-8
~B.-uE
u:J ~ v (J
~ ~ ~~
8~ E.~
v <-'...... <./)
(/)4-<11) -
NO..o::
r::~::g~
~ ~ g u
~.~ ~ 'l>
~:a-g~
........~ 0 ......
2~-t:]
t;.c~..g
.B ~ ~ '8
~E~8
I
:
u
o
'0
<i
E
E
N
;:::
~
C-
O::
J-
if)
::J
U
Z
::::J
o
U
W
cr:
<(
I
(f)
z
::i
0..
(/)
>-
if)
::J
....J
<(
I
>-
J-
~
Adopted and approved this 26th of September, 2000.
I, Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution 9576 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting
of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 26th of September, 2000, by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council members:
Holbrook, Rosenstein, McKeown,
Feinstein, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor
Noes: Council members:
Bloom, Mayor Genser
Abstain: Council members:
None
Absent: Council members:
None
ATTEST:
~.~~